Apotex Europe Ltd & Ors v Smithkline Beecham Plc & Anor [2003] EWHC 533 (Pat) (11 March 2003)
The application to force claimants to run experiments entirely in parallel was unreasonable and disproportionate given the minor difference in timetable and the claimants' inability to foreshorten the time reasonably.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2003] EWHC 533 (Pat)
- Parties
- Claimant: Apotex Europe Limited; Claimant: Neolab Limited; Claimant: Waymade Healthcare PLC; Defendant: SmithKline Beecham Plc; Defendant: GlaxoSmithKline (UK) Limited
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 11 March 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Patent Infringement and Validity / Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Patent Infringement, Patent Validity, Interlocutory Injunction, Experimental Evidence
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Apotex Europe Limited
Claimant
Neolab Limited
Claimant
Waymade Healthcare PLC
Claimant
SmithKline Beecham Plc
Defendant
GlaxoSmithKline (UK) Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement and Validity / Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether claimants should be ordered to repeat experiments on a timetable requiring all to be run in parallel
Ratio Decidendi
The application to force claimants to run experiments entirely in parallel was unreasonable and disproportionate given the minor difference in timetable and the claimants' inability to foreshorten the time reasonably.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- No order requiring claimants to run experiments in parallel
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment