Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Ltd & Anor v Warner -Lambert Company LLC [2012] EWHC 1791 (Pat) (28 June 2012)

Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Ltd & Anor v Warner -Lambert Company LLC [2012] EWHC 1791 (Pat) (28 June 2012)

The court refused to make a reference to the ECJ in advance of trial because the parties' arguments were not sufficiently developed or clarified, the relevant facts were not fully established, and the legal issues had not crystallised to the extent necessary to frame clear and precise questions for the ECJ. The court held that a reference may be appropriate after trial, but not at this interlocutory stage.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1791 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant: Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Limited; Claimant: Dr Reddy's Laboratories Limited; Defendant: Warner-Lambert Company LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Patent Revocation Application / Interlocutory Application for Preliminary Reference to ECJ Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for preliminary reference to ECJ refused
Legal Topics
Supplementary Protection Certificate, Paediatric Regulation, Preliminary Reference Procedure, Patent Revocation
Intellectual Property Pharmaceutical Law European Union Law Supplementary Protection Certificate Paediatric Regulation Preliminary Reference Procedure Patent Revocation

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Limited

Claimant

Dr Reddy's Laboratories Limited

Claimant

Warner-Lambert Company LLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Patent Revocation Application / Interlocutory Application for Preliminary Reference to ECJ Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a reference to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling should be made in advance of trial regarding the interpretation and application of the Paediatric Regulation and related provisions to the revocation of a paediatric extension to an SPC.

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to make a reference to the ECJ in advance of trial because the parties' arguments were not sufficiently developed or clarified, the relevant facts were not fully established, and the legal issues had not crystallised to the extent necessary to frame clear and precise questions for the ECJ. The court held that a reference may be appropriate after trial, but not at this interlocutory stage.

Court Disposition

Application for preliminary reference to ECJ refused

Orders

  • No reference to the ECJ to be made at this stage; matter to proceed to trial.