Approved Prescription Services Ltd v Merck & Co Inc [2003] EWHC 150 (Pat) (06 February 2003)

Approved Prescription Services Ltd v Merck & Co Inc [2003] EWHC 150 (Pat) (06 February 2003)

The court held that, despite the risk of inconsistent judgments, the commercial urgency and limited scope of APS's application justified an expedited hearing. The matter should be listed for a one-day hearing at the end of March or beginning of April, with directions to be agreed or ordered to ensure this. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 150 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Approved Prescription Services Limited; Defendant: Merck & Co. Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Directions in Action for Declaration of Non Infringement / Pre Trial Directions Hearing
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Declaration of Non Infringement, Patent Construction, Case Management, Expedited Trial
Intellectual Property Patents Declaration of Non Infringement Patent Construction Case Management Expedited Trial

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Approved Prescription Services Limited

Claimant

Merck & Co. Inc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Directions in Action for Declaration of Non Infringement / Pre Trial Directions Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether APS's application for an expedited hearing for a declaration of non-infringement should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the issue of construction of the patent claims should be determined separately from the main trial involving other parties
  3. 3 Whether the hearing should be limited in duration and scope

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, despite the risk of inconsistent judgments, the commercial urgency and limited scope of APS's application justified an expedited hearing. The matter should be listed for a one-day hearing at the end of March or beginning of April, with directions to be agreed or ordered to ensure this. The possibility of intervention by other parties does not justify delaying APS's right to a speedy determination.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Case to be listed for hearing at end of March or beginning of April, limited to one day.
  • Parties to agree directions or, failing agreement, directions to be ordered to ensure the hearing occurs as scheduled.