Novartis Ag v Hospira UK Ltd [2013] EWHC 1285 (Pat) (14 May 2013)

Novartis Ag v Hospira UK Ltd [2013] EWHC 1285 (Pat) (14 May 2013)

The court refused the interim injunction because, although Novartis had a plainly arguable appeal, the balance of uncompensatable harm did not favour an injunction post-trial. The risk of significant unquantifiable loss existed on both sides, but the risk should be borne by the appellant (Novartis) after a full trial and judgment on the merits. The proceedings were conducted on the basis that the trial would determine the parties' rights before the SPC expired, and the balance of convenience post-trial is not the same as pre-trial.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1285 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Novartis AG; Defendant: Hospira UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Injunction in Patent Proceedings / Post Trial, Pending Appeal
Outcome
Interim injunction refused; costs awarded to the defendant.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Patent Validity, Balance of Convenience, Appeal Pending, Cross Undertaking in Damages
Intellectual Property Patents Interim Injunctions Patent Validity Balance of Convenience Appeal Pending Cross Undertaking in Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Novartis AG

Claimant

Hospira UK Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Injunction in Patent Proceedings / Post Trial, Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction should be granted pending appeal after a finding of patent invalidity
  2. 2 Appropriate principles for granting interim relief post-trial in patent cases

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the interim injunction because, although Novartis had a plainly arguable appeal, the balance of uncompensatable harm did not favour an injunction post-trial. The risk of significant unquantifiable loss existed on both sides, but the risk should be borne by the appellant (Novartis) after a full trial and judgment on the merits. The proceedings were conducted on the basis that the trial would determine the parties' rights before the SPC expired, and the balance of convenience post-trial is not the same as pre-trial.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction refused; costs awarded to the defendant.

Orders

  • Application for interim injunction pending appeal dismissed.
  • Claimant (Novartis) to pay defendant's (Hospira) costs of the application.