Illumina, Inc ('Illumina') & Ors v Illumina, Inc & Ors, Court of Appeal - Patents Court, December 16, 2016, [2016] EWHC 3345 (Pat)

Resolution Date:December 16, 2016
Issuing Organization:Patents Court
Actores:Illumina, Inc ('Illumina') & Ors v Illumina, Inc & Ors
 
FREE EXCERPT

Cases No: HP-2015-000047, HC-2015-001175

Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 3345 (Pat)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

PATENTS COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

7 Rolls Building

Fetter Lane

London EC4A 1NL

Date: 16/12/2016

Before:

MR. JUSTICE ROTH

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ms Ronit Kreisberger (instructed by Powell Gilbert LLP)

for the Claimants

Mr Daviel Beard QC and Ms Ligia Osepciu (instructed by Allen & Overy LLP)

for the Defendant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment

Ruling on Disclosure

MR. JUSTICE ROTH:

  1. On 1 July 2016, I heard an application in these proceedings to permit the defendant to introduce what were referred to as `non-technical' defences by way of additional pleadings in these two actions. Those were essentially competition law defences which, if the defendant failed at the initial, `technical' patent trial, would be heard and determined at a subsequent, `non-technical' trial. (There are two defences because there are two actions, but they are to be heard together.) For reasons set out in a judgment delivered that day, I adjourned the issue to be determined as directed by the trial judge after the handing down of judgment in the `technical' trial, with permission for the defendant to substitute a revised draft non-technical defence following that judgment: [2016] EWHC 1726 (Pat).

  2. At the same time I directed specific disclosure by the claimants of the unredacted version of a particular document called the Pooled Patents Agreement between the first claimant (``Illumina'') and Sequenom Inc (``Sequenom''), dated 2 December 2014 (the ``PPA'') but only within a confidential ring. That was because the defendant was relying upon that document in its draft non-technical defences but was hampered in setting out its case by the fact that the copy of the PPA to which it had access was heavily redacted. Since one complaint advanced by the claimants against the grant of permission to amend was that the draft pleadings were too vague, it seemed appropriate that the defendant should have access to a full copy of the PPA provided that the claimants' confidential information could be protected: see the judgment at [12].

  3. It was left to the parties in the usual way to produce a written form of order for approval. However, although liaison between the parties' representatives led to agreement on much of the proposed order, there was one aspect on which the parties...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL