Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Limited & Anor. v Teva UK Limited

Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Limited & Anor. v Teva UK Limited

Damages would be an adequate remedy for Neurim/Flynn both pre- and post-expiry, while damages would not be an adequate remedy for Teva due to uncertainty and loss of first mover advantage. The balance of risk of irremediable harm and the status quo favour refusal of the interim injunction. There was no sufficient material change in circumstances to justify a different outcome from the first application.

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
Civil Intellectual Property (patents) / Second Application for Interim Injunction
Outcome
Application for interim injunction refused; costs awarded to Teva on the indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Adequacy of Damages, Balance of Convenience, Pharmaceutical Patents, First Mover Advantage, Status Quo in Injunction Applications
Intellectual Property Patents Interim Injunctions Adequacy of Damages Balance of Convenience Pharmaceutical Patents First Mover Advantage Status Quo in Injunction Applications

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

Civil Intellectual Property (patents) / Second Application for Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunctive relief should be granted to restrain Teva from selling melatonin products pending trial or expiry of the patent
  2. 2 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for either party if the injunction is granted or refused
  3. 3 Whether there has been a material change in circumstances since the first application

Ratio Decidendi

Damages would be an adequate remedy for Neurim/Flynn both pre- and post-expiry, while damages would not be an adequate remedy for Teva due to uncertainty and loss of first mover advantage. The balance of risk of irremediable harm and the status quo favour refusal of the interim injunction. There was no sufficient material change in circumstances to justify a different outcome from the first application.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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