Smith & Nephew Plc v Convatec Technologies Inc & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 803 (30 July 2015)

Smith & Nephew Plc v Convatec Technologies Inc & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 803 (30 July 2015)

Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is refused as no significant point of general public importance arises. The injunction and order for delivery up/destruction are stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision on permission to appeal or, if later, the EPO Technical Board of Appeal decision, due to the balance...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 803
Parties
Appellant: Smith & Nephew plc; Respondent/appellant: ConvaTec Technologies Inc; Third Party: T J Smith & Nephew Ltd; Third Party: Smith & Nephew Medical Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity Appeal / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal; Judgment on Form of Order
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; injunction and order for delivery up/destruction stayed pending Supreme Court/EPO; limited disclosure ordered; costs apportioned; payment on account ordered.
Legal Topics
Patent Construction, Injunctions, Stays Pending Appeal, Costs, Disclosure, Account of Profits, Damages, Opposition Proceedings
Intellectual Property Patents Civil Procedure Patent Construction Injunctions Stays Pending Appeal Costs Disclosure +3 more

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smith & Nephew plc

Appellant

ConvaTec Technologies Inc

Respondent/appellant

T J Smith & Nephew Ltd

Third Party

Smith & Nephew Medical Ltd

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement and Validity Appeal / Appeal From High Court (patents Court) to Court of Appeal; Judgment on Form of Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant permission to appeal to the Supreme Court
  2. 2 Whether to stay injunction and order for delivery up/destruction pending Supreme Court and EPO proceedings
  3. 3 Appropriate disclosure for election between damages/account of profits

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is refused as no significant point of general public importance arises. The injunction and order for delivery up/destruction are stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision on permission to appeal or, if later, the EPO Technical Board of Appeal decision, due to the balance of justice and potential irreparable harm to Smith & Nephew. Disclosure is limited to sales and supplies of Durafiber as offered by Smith & Nephew. ConvaTec is entitled to 60% of first instance costs (after interim orders) and 86% of appeal costs, with payment on account ordered.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; injunction and order for delivery up/destruction stayed pending Supreme Court/EPO; limited disclosure ordered; costs apportioned; payment on account ordered.

Orders

  • Stay of injunction and order for delivery up/destruction pending Supreme Court permission application or EPO TBA decision
  • Smith & Nephew to provide disclosure of sales and supplies of Durafiber