Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd & Anor v Teva UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 1641 (Pat) (29 June 2022)

Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd & Anor v Teva UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 1641 (Pat) (29 June 2022)

The court refused the interim injunction because damages would be an adequate remedy for Neurim/Flynn both pre- and post-expiry of the patent, while damages would not be an adequate remedy for Teva due to uncertainty in lost sales and loss of first mover advantage. The balance of risk of irremediable harm favored Teva. There was no material change in circumstances justifying a different outcome from the first application. Costs were awarded to Teva on the indemnity basis as the second application was outside the ordinary and reasonable conduct of litigation.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1641 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Limited; Claimant: Flynn Pharma Limited; Defendant: Teva UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Interim Application in Patent Infringement Proceedings / Second Application for Interim Injunction Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for interim injunction refused; costs awarded to Teva on the indemnity basis; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Adequacy of Damages, Balance of Convenience, Patent Infringement, Pharmaceuticals, Costs (indemnity Basis)
Intellectual Property Patents Interim Injunctions Adequacy of Damages Balance of Convenience Patent Infringement Pharmaceuticals Costs (indemnity Basis)

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Limited

Claimant

Flynn Pharma Limited

Claimant

Teva UK Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Application in Patent Infringement Proceedings / Second Application for Interim Injunction Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunctive relief should be granted to restrain alleged patent infringement prior to trial
  2. 2 Whether there has been a material change in circumstances since the first application
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for either party

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the interim injunction because damages would be an adequate remedy for Neurim/Flynn both pre- and post-expiry of the patent, while damages would not be an adequate remedy for Teva due to uncertainty in lost sales and loss of first mover advantage. The balance of risk of irremediable harm favored Teva. There was no material change in circumstances justifying a different outcome from the first application. Costs were awarded to Teva on the indemnity basis as the second application was outside the ordinary and reasonable conduct of litigation.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction refused; costs awarded to Teva on the indemnity basis; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Application for interim injunction dismissed
  • Neurim/Flynn to pay Teva's costs of the application on the indemnity basis