VIIV Healthcare UK Ltd v Teva UK Ltd

VIIV Healthcare UK Ltd v Teva UK Ltd

The application for a reference to the CJEU is dismissed because it is premature. The court is not satisfied that a reference is necessary at this stage, given unresolved issues regarding patent validity, potential amendments, and factual matters such as innovation and synergy. The proposed statement of facts is insufficiently precise, and the necessity for a reference can only be meaningfully assessed after the trial.

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

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VIIV HEALTHCARE UK LIMITED

Claimant

TEVA UK LIMITED

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent/intellectual Property / 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 the SPC for Kivexa
  2. 2 Whether the questions proposed are acte clair
  3. 3 Whether a reference is premature given unresolved factual and legal issues

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a reference to the CJEU is dismissed because it is premature. The court is not satisfied that a reference is necessary at this stage, given unresolved issues regarding patent validity, potential amendments, and factual matters such as innovation and synergy. The proposed statement of facts is insufficiently precise, and the necessity for a reference can only be meaningfully assessed after the trial.

Court Disposition

Application for reference to CJEU dismissed

Orders

  • No reference to the CJEU will be made at this stage