Novartis Ag v Hospira UK Ltd

Novartis Ag v Hospira UK Ltd

The court refused the interim injunction because, after a full trial and judgment on the merits, only a plainly arguable appeal existed, and the balance of convenience did not justify an injunction; significant uncompensatable harm existed on both sides, but the risk should be borne by the appellant.

Parties
Claimant: Novartis AG; Defendant: Hospira UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Injunction / Post Trial, Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for interim injunction refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Patent Validity, Balance of Convenience, Appeal Procedures
Intellectual Property Pharmaceutical Law Interim Injunctions Patent Validity Balance of Convenience Appeal Procedures

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 5 Authorities cited 11 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 / Post Trial, Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction should be granted pending appeal after a patent has been found invalid
  2. 2 Assessment of balance of convenience and uncompensatable harm
  3. 3 Adequacy of damages as a remedy

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the interim injunction because, after a full trial and judgment on the merits, only a plainly arguable appeal existed, and the balance of convenience did not justify an injunction; significant uncompensatable harm existed on both sides, but the risk should be borne by the appellant.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction refused

Orders

  • Novartis to pay Hospira's costs of the application
  • No interim injunction granted; Hospira undertook not to launch before 4 p.m. Friday