Novartis AG & Anor. v Teva UK Limited & Ors.

Novartis AG & Anor. v Teva UK Limited & Ors.

The judge was entitled to find that damages would be an adequate remedy for Novartis and that there was no real prospect of success in challenging his factual conclusions regarding price depression, price spiral, and the ability to restore the monopoly price. The application for permission to appeal was refused as there was no arguable error of law or principle.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Novartis AG; Appellant/claimant: Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited; Respondent/defendant: Teva UK Limited; Respondent/defendant: Dr. Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Limited; Respondent/defendant: Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Europe Limited; Respondent/defendant: Tillomed Laboratories Limited; Respondent/defendant: Zenvita Pharma UK Limited; Respondent/defendant: Aristo Pharma GmbH; Respondent/defendant: Viatris UK Healthcare Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Adequacy of Damages, Balance of Convenience, Patent Validity, Pharmaceuticals
Intellectual Property Patents Interim Injunctions Adequacy of Damages Balance of Convenience Patent Validity Pharmaceuticals

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Novartis AG

Appellant/claimant

Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited

Appellant/claimant

Teva UK Limited

Respondent/defendant

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Limited

Respondent/defendant

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Europe Limited

Respondent/defendant

Tillomed Laboratories Limited

Respondent/defendant

Zenvita Pharma UK Limited

Respondent/defendant

Aristo Pharma GmbH

Respondent/defendant

Viatris UK Healthcare Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing an interim injunction pending trial in a patent dispute
  2. 2 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the patentee if the injunction was refused
  3. 3 Whether the judge applied the correct legal principles in assessing the balance of convenience

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find that damages would be an adequate remedy for Novartis and that there was no real prospect of success in challenging his factual conclusions regarding price depression, price spiral, and the ability to restore the monopoly price. The application for permission to appeal was refused as there was no arguable error of law or principle.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • No order as to costs.