Hospira UK Ltd v Novartis AG [2013] EWHC 886 (Pat) (12 April 2013)

Hospira UK Ltd v Novartis AG [2013] EWHC 886 (Pat) (12 April 2013)

Although the claimants were overall winners, they lost on certain issues (notably obviousness and some common general knowledge points). The court found it appropriate to deprive claimants of their costs on those issues and require them to pay Novartis' costs for those, but not for other minor or abandoned issues. A broad brush percentage approach was adopted, resulting in Hospira recovering 40% and Mylan 60% of their costs from Novartis.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 886 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Hospira UK Limited; Defendant: Novartis AG; Claimant: Generics (UK) Limited (T/A Mylan)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Costs Determination in Patent Revocation Proceedings / Post Trial, Costs Order
Outcome
Costs order: Hospira to recover 40% of its costs from Novartis; Mylan to recover 60% of its costs from Novartis.
Legal Topics
Patent Revocation, Costs Orders, Allocation of Costs
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Revocation Costs Orders Allocation of Costs

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hospira UK Limited

Claimant

Novartis AG

Defendant

Generics (UK) Limited (T/A Mylan)

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Costs Determination in Patent Revocation Proceedings / Post Trial, Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Entitlement to costs following patent revocation
  2. 2 Whether claimants should be deprived of costs or pay defendant's costs on specific issues
  3. 3 Appropriate allocation of costs between parties

Ratio Decidendi

Although the claimants were overall winners, they lost on certain issues (notably obviousness and some common general knowledge points). The court found it appropriate to deprive claimants of their costs on those issues and require them to pay Novartis' costs for those, but not for other minor or abandoned issues. A broad brush percentage approach was adopted, resulting in Hospira recovering 40% and Mylan 60% of their costs from Novartis.

Court Disposition

Costs order: Hospira to recover 40% of its costs from Novartis; Mylan to recover 60% of its costs from Novartis.

Orders

  • Hospira to recover 40% of its costs from Novartis.
  • Mylan to recover 60% of its costs from Novartis.