Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd & Anor v Teva UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 954 (Pat) (26 April 2022)

Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd & Anor v Teva UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 954 (Pat) (26 April 2022)

The claimants delayed significantly in seeking interim relief against Teva, and Teva had been on the market since October 2021. The losses suffered by the claimants over the relevant period would be capable of being ascertained with a reasonably high degree of accuracy, and damages would be an adequate remedy. The evidence did not support a finding that a downward price spiral was likely to occur before patent expiry. The balance of convenience did not favour granting an interim injunction.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 954 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Limited; Claimant: Flynn Pharma Limited; Defendant: Teva UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Patent Interim Injunction Application / Interim Application for Injunctive Relief Prior to Trial
Outcome
Interim injunction refused
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Pharmaceutical Patents, Market Entry, Damages Adequacy, Downward Price Spiral, Status Quo Preservation
Intellectual Property Patents Interim Injunctions Pharmaceutical Patents Market Entry Damages Adequacy Downward Price Spiral Status Quo Preservation

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Limited

Claimant

Flynn Pharma Limited

Claimant

Teva UK Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Interim Injunction Application / Interim Application for Injunctive Relief Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunctive relief should be granted to restrain Teva from selling its generic melatonin product pending trial or further order
  2. 2 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the claimants if no injunction is granted
  3. 3 Whether refusal of the injunction would lead to a downward price spiral causing unquantifiable loss to the claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants delayed significantly in seeking interim relief against Teva, and Teva had been on the market since October 2021. The losses suffered by the claimants over the relevant period would be capable of being ascertained with a reasonably high degree of accuracy, and damages would be an adequate remedy. The evidence did not support a finding that a downward price spiral was likely to occur before patent expiry. The balance of convenience did not favour granting an interim injunction.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction refused

Orders

  • Application for interim injunctive relief against Teva UK Limited dismissed
  • No order for interim relief pending trial