Glaxo Wellcome UK Ltd (t/a Allen & Hanburys) & Anor v Sandoz Ltd & Ors [2017] EWHC 1524 (Ch) (28 June 2017)

Glaxo Wellcome UK Ltd (t/a Allen & Hanburys) & Anor v Sandoz Ltd & Ors [2017] EWHC 1524 (Ch) (28 June 2017)

The Defendants failed to demonstrate that the evidence they sought to adduce was properly characterised as expert evidence reasonably required for resolving the proceedings. The evidence related to factual practices and experience, not expert opinion based on a recognised body of knowledge, and could be provided by witnesses of fact without engaging CPR Part 35. Open-ended permission for expert evidence was therefore refused.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1524 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Glaxo Wellcome UK Limited (T/A Allen & Hanburys); Claimant: Glaxo Group Limited; Defendant: Sandoz Limited; Defendant: Sandoz International GmbH; Defendant: Aeropharm GmbH; Defendant: Hexal AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property (passing Off and Trade Mark) / Case Management Conference—application for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Passing Off, Trade Mark Infringement, Expert Evidence, Civil Evidence, Case Management
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Passing Off Trade Mark Infringement Expert Evidence Civil Evidence Case Management

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glaxo Wellcome UK Limited (T/A Allen & Hanburys)

Claimant

Glaxo Group Limited

Claimant

Sandoz Limited

Defendant

Sandoz International GmbH

Defendant

Aeropharm GmbH

Defendant

Hexal AG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property (passing Off and Trade Mark) / Case Management Conference—application for Permission to Adduce Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted under CPR Part 35 for parties to adduce expert evidence in three identified areas: (1) medical conditions treatable by inhalers and types of inhalers; (2) prescribing practices of healthcare professionals; (3) dispensing practices of healthcare professionals.

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants failed to demonstrate that the evidence they sought to adduce was properly characterised as expert evidence reasonably required for resolving the proceedings. The evidence related to factual practices and experience, not expert opinion based on a recognised body of knowledge, and could be provided by witnesses of fact without engaging CPR Part 35. Open-ended permission for expert evidence was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Defendants' application for permission to adduce expert evidence is refused.
  • Parties have permission to apply in respect of expert evidence if, after further consideration, limited expert evidence can be shown to be of real assistance to the Court.