The University of Sheffield v Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Ors

The University of Sheffield v Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Ors

Expert evidence on market practice is not admissible in this claim because the disputed term is defined in ordinary language, the contract was drafted by skilled professionals, and no relevant market practice has been identified that would assist the court; permitting such evidence would usurp the court's function in contract construction.

Parties
Claimant: The University of Sheffield; Defendant: Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited; Defendant: AstraZeneca UK Limited; Defendant: AstraZeneca Intermediate Holdings Limited; Defendant: AstraZeneca PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim / First Case Management Conference, Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Patent Licensing, Contract Construction, Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Contract Law Intellectual Property Commercial Law Patent Licensing Contract Construction Admissibility of Expert Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The University of Sheffield

Claimant

Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited

Defendant

AstraZeneca UK Limited

Defendant

AstraZeneca Intermediate Holdings Limited

Defendant

AstraZeneca PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim / First Case Management Conference, Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether expert evidence on market practice is admissible to construe the definition of 'Net Lump Sum Revenues' in the 2004 Licence
  2. 2 Proper construction of 'Net Lump Sum Revenues' under the 2004 Licence

Ratio Decidendi

Expert evidence on market practice is not admissible in this claim because the disputed term is defined in ordinary language, the contract was drafted by skilled professionals, and no relevant market practice has been identified that would assist the court; permitting such evidence would usurp the court's function in contract construction.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Permission to adduce expert evidence on market practice is denied.