Cipla Limited v Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc

Cipla Limited v Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc

The tribunal did not commit a serious irregularity under section 68(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996. The 26 October ruling excluded late evidence but did not remove the burden from Cipla to prove that the amorphous rifaximin in XIFAXAN® tablets exhibited the Figure 1 XRPD pattern. The issue remained live, was pleaded, and was addressed in closings. Cipla had a fair opportunity to present its case and did not proceed on the assumption that the issue was no longer live. The tribunal did not overlook determinative or agreed evidence. There was no breach of the tribunal's duty under section 33.

Parties
Claimant: Cipla Limited; Defendant: Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge Under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Application to Set Aside/remit Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application dismissed; judgment for Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Tribunal's Duty of Fairness (s.33), Patent Infringement, Burden of Proof in Arbitration, Exclusion of Late Evidence
Arbitration Commercial Law Intellectual Property Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Tribunal's Duty of Fairness (s.33) Patent Infringement Burden of Proof in Arbitration Exclusion of Late 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cipla Limited

Claimant

Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge Under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Application to Set Aside/remit Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral tribunal committed a serious irregularity under section 68(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996 by failing to comply with its duty under section 33 to act fairly and impartially
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal improperly decided the case on a point not argued or in respect of which evidence was excluded
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal overlooked agreed or determinative evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal did not commit a serious irregularity under section 68(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996. The 26 October ruling excluded late evidence but did not remove the burden from Cipla to prove that the amorphous rifaximin in XIFAXAN® tablets exhibited the Figure 1 XRPD pattern. The issue remained live, was pleaded, and was addressed in closings. Cipla had a fair opportunity to present its case and did not proceed on the assumption that the issue was no longer live. The tribunal did not overlook determinative or agreed evidence. There was no breach of the tribunal's duty under section 33.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; judgment for Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc.