Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Ltd & Anor v Warner -Lambert Company LLC

Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Ltd & Anor v Warner -Lambert Company LLC

The court declined to make a reference to the ECJ before trial because the parties' arguments were not sufficiently developed or clarified, the factual situation was not adequately defined, and all relevant legal issues had not crystallised to frame precise questions for the ECJ. The court held that a trial would assist in clarifying facts and arguments, and that a reference may be appropriate after trial if necessary.

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
Civil / Application for Reference to ECJ Before Trial
Outcome
Application for reference to ECJ before trial refused
Legal Topics
Supplementary Protection Certificate, Paediatric Regulation, Preliminary Reference, Patent Revocation
Intellectual Property Pharmaceutical Law European Union Law Supplementary Protection Certificate Paediatric Regulation Preliminary Reference 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 6 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

Civil / Application for Reference to ECJ Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a reference to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling should be made before trial
  2. 2 Interpretation of Article 45(3) of Regulation (EC) 1901/2006
  3. 3 Validity of the paediatric investigation plan (PIP)

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to make a reference to the ECJ before trial because the parties' arguments were not sufficiently developed or clarified, the factual situation was not adequately defined, and all relevant legal issues had not crystallised to frame precise questions for the ECJ. The court held that a trial would assist in clarifying facts and arguments, and that a reference may be appropriate after trial if necessary.

Court Disposition

Application for reference to ECJ before trial refused

Orders

  • No reference to ECJ to be made at this stage
  • Trial to proceed in approximately six months