Smithkline Beecham Plc & Anor v Apotex Europe Ltd. & Ors

Smithkline Beecham Plc & Anor v Apotex Europe Ltd. & Ors

The appeal is dismissed because the judge was entitled to grant an interlocutory injunction; there was a serious issue to be tried, damages would not be an adequate remedy for either party, and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo pending trial. The specification was arguably framed with reasonable skill and knowledge, and damages for infringement were not too remote.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: SmithKline Beecham PLC; Claimant/respondent: GlaxoSmithKline (UK) Limited; Defendant/appellant: Apotex Europe Limited; Defendant/appellant: Neolab Limited; Defendant/appellant: Waymade Healthcare PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Injunction Decision
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Interlocutory Injunctions, Damages, Remoteness, Balance of Convenience
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patent Infringement Interlocutory Injunctions Damages Remoteness Balance of Convenience

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

Parties

SmithKline Beecham PLC

Claimant/respondent

GlaxoSmithKline (UK) Limited

Claimant/respondent

Apotex Europe Limited

Defendant/appellant

Neolab Limited

Defendant/appellant

Waymade Healthcare PLC

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Injunction Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory injunction should be granted pending trial in patent infringement dispute
  2. 2 Whether damages for infringement would be recoverable given partial invalidity and proposed amendment of patent
  3. 3 Whether alleged damages are too remote to be recoverable

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the judge was entitled to grant an interlocutory injunction; there was a serious issue to be tried, damages would not be an adequate remedy for either party, and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo pending trial. The specification was arguably framed with reasonable skill and knowledge, and damages for infringement were not too remote.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • interlocutory injunction maintained pending trial