VIIV Healthcare UK Ltd v Teva UK Ltd [2015] EWHC 1074 (Ch) (23 April 2015)

VIIV Healthcare UK Ltd v Teva UK Ltd [2015] EWHC 1074 (Ch) (23 April 2015)

It is premature to make a reference to the CJEU before the essential facts are determined at trial, including the validity of the patent, the allowability of amendments, and the existence of innovation or synergy in the claimed combinations. The court should not refer hypothetical or contingent questions to the CJEU, and the current statement of facts is insufficiently precise for a reference.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1074 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: VIIV HEALTHCARE UK LIMITED; Defendant: TEVA UK LIMITED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Patent/intellectual Property / Interlocutory Application for Reference to CJEU
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Supplementary Protection Certificate (spc), Patent Amendment, Article 3 of Regulation (ec) No 469/2009, Reference to CJEU, Case Management
Intellectual Property Law European Union Law Supplementary Protection Certificate (spc) Patent Amendment Article 3 of Regulation (ec) No 469/2009 Reference to CJEU Case Management

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 1 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VIIV HEALTHCARE UK LIMITED

Claimant

TEVA UK LIMITED

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent/intellectual Property / Interlocutory Application for Reference to CJEU

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a reference to the CJEU should be made regarding the interpretation of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 in the context of an SPC for a combination product where there are earlier and later marketing authorisations for different combinations.
  2. 2 Whether the court should make a reference to the CJEU before essential facts are determined at trial.

Ratio Decidendi

It is premature to make a reference to the CJEU before the essential facts are determined at trial, including the validity of the patent, the allowability of amendments, and the existence of innovation or synergy in the claimed combinations. The court should not refer hypothetical or contingent questions to the CJEU, and the current statement of facts is insufficiently precise for a reference.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for reference to the CJEU is refused.