Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) v Warner-Lambert Company LLC [2015] EWHC 3370 (Pat) (25 November 2015)

Generics (UK) Ltd (t/a Mylan) v Warner-Lambert Company LLC [2015] EWHC 3370 (Pat) (25 November 2015)

Warner-Lambert's application to amend claim 3 after judgment, by re-writing rather than simple deletion, constitutes an abuse of process because the amendment could and should have been advanced before or at trial. Allowing the amendment would require a second trial on validity, contrary to the principles of procedural fairness, finality, and the overriding objective of the CPR. There are no special circumstances justifying departure from the general rule.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 3370 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Generics (UK) Limited trading as Mylan; Defendant: Warner-Lambert Company LLC; Third Party: Actavis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Patent Litigation (revocation and Infringement) / Post Trial Application to Amend Patent; Preliminary Hearing on Abuse of Process
Outcome
Application to amend claim 3 refused as an abuse of process.
Legal Topics
Patent Amendment, Abuse of Process, Insufficiency, Procedural Fairness, Central Limitation, Revocation, Infringement
Intellectual Property Law Patent Law Patent Amendment Abuse of Process Insufficiency Procedural Fairness Central Limitation Revocation +1 more

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Generics (UK) Limited trading as Mylan

Claimant

Warner-Lambert Company LLC

Defendant

Actavis

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Patent Litigation (revocation and Infringement) / Post Trial Application to Amend Patent; Preliminary Hearing on Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Warner-Lambert's post-judgment application to amend claim 3 of the patent constitutes an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the amendment should be allowed to proceed or is precluded by principles of procedural fairness and finality in litigation

Ratio Decidendi

Warner-Lambert's application to amend claim 3 after judgment, by re-writing rather than simple deletion, constitutes an abuse of process because the amendment could and should have been advanced before or at trial. Allowing the amendment would require a second trial on validity, contrary to the principles of procedural fairness, finality, and the overriding objective of the CPR. There are no special circumstances justifying departure from the general rule.

Court Disposition

Application to amend claim 3 refused as an abuse of process.

Orders

  • Warner-Lambert's application to amend claim 3 is dismissed.
  • No order for a second trial on the validity of the amended claim.