Merck Sharp Dohme Corp & Anor v Teva Pharma BV & Anor [2013] EWHC 1958 (Pat) (09 July 2013)

Merck Sharp Dohme Corp & Anor v Teva Pharma BV & Anor [2013] EWHC 1958 (Pat) (09 July 2013)

At the date proceedings were issued, there was a sufficiently strong probability that an injunction would be required to prevent Teva from infringing BMS's patent and SPC, as Teva was actively considering launching efavirenz at risk before expiry and refused to provide assurances or notice to BMS. This justified the grant of a permanent injunction.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1958 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Merck Sharp Dohme Corp.; Claimant: Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Limited; Defendant: Teva Pharma B.V.; Defendant: Teva UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement (final Trial) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed. Permanent injunction granted.
Legal Topics
Quia Timet Injunctions, Patent Infringement, Interim and Permanent Injunctions, SPC (supplementary Protection Certificate), Pharmaceutical Patents
Intellectual Property Patents Quia Timet Injunctions Patent Infringement Interim and Permanent Injunctions SPC (supplementary Protection Certificate) Pharmaceutical Patents

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 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Merck Sharp Dohme Corp.

Claimant

Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Limited

Claimant

Teva Pharma B.V.

Defendant

Teva UK Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement (final Trial) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Teva threatened and intended to infringe BMS's patent and SPC by launching efavirenz before expiry
  2. 2 Whether BMS was entitled to quia timet relief (injunction) to prevent threatened infringement

Ratio Decidendi

At the date proceedings were issued, there was a sufficiently strong probability that an injunction would be required to prevent Teva from infringing BMS's patent and SPC, as Teva was actively considering launching efavirenz at risk before expiry and refused to provide assurances or notice to BMS. This justified the grant of a permanent injunction.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Permanent injunction granted.

Orders

  • Teva is restrained by injunction from infringing the patent and SPC until expiry.