Actavis Group PTC EHF v Pharmacia LLC [2014] EWHC 2265 (Pat) (11 July 2014)

Actavis Group PTC EHF v Pharmacia LLC [2014] EWHC 2265 (Pat) (11 July 2014)

The stay was refused because the EPO proceedings had only just begun and, even with expedition, were likely to take at least three years, whereas the UK proceedings would be resolved in two years, providing earlier commercial certainty. Pharmacia's undertakings did not fully eliminate the chilling effect of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2265 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Actavis Group PTC ehf; Defendant: Pharmacia LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation and Stay Application / Interlocutory Application for Stay Pending EPO Proceedings
Outcome
Stay refused
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Patent Validity, Parallel EPO Opposition, Commercial Certainty, Interim Undertakings
Intellectual Property Patents Stay of Proceedings Patent Validity Parallel EPO Opposition Commercial Certainty Interim Undertakings

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Actavis Group PTC ehf

Claimant

Pharmacia LLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation and Stay Application / Interlocutory Application for Stay Pending EPO Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to stay UK patent revocation proceedings pending outcome of parallel EPO opposition
  2. 2 Balance of justice between early UK resolution and risk of wasted costs
  3. 3 Effect of undertakings on commercial certainty

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because the EPO proceedings had only just begun and, even with expedition, were likely to take at least three years, whereas the UK proceedings would be resolved in two years, providing earlier commercial certainty. Pharmacia's undertakings did not fully eliminate the chilling effect of potential future injunctions and damages, and the public interest in early determination of patent validity and potential for settlement also supported refusal of a stay.

Court Disposition

Stay refused

Orders

  • Proceedings not stayed; further argument to be heard on additional undertakings and costs.