Celltrion Inc v Biogen Idec Inc & Ors, Court of Appeal - Patents Court, January 22, 2016, [2016] EWHC 188 (Pat)

Resolution Date:January 22, 2016
Issuing Organization:Patents Court
Actores:Celltrion Inc v Biogen Idec Inc & Ors
 
FREE EXCERPT

6

Case No: HP-2015-000059

Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 188 (Pat)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

PATENTS COURT

The Rolls Building

7 Rolls Buildings

London, EC4A 1NL

Friday, 22nd January 2016

Before:

MR. JUSTICE HENRY CARR

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

Between:

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

Digital transcription by Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd.,

First Floor, Quality House, 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP.

DX 410 LDE

Telephone No: 020 7067 2900. Fax No: 020 7831 6864

Email : info@martenwalshcherer.com

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

MS. CHARLOTTE MAY QC and MR. TOM ALKIN (instructed by Bristows LLP) appeared for the Claimant

MR. TOM MOODY-STUART (instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP) appeared for the Defendants

MR. JAMES WHYTE (instructed by Taylor Wessing LLP) for Hospira, interested party

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

JudgmentMR. JUSTICE HENRY CARR:

  1. This is an application by the Claimant ``Celltrion'' for an order that proceedings for revocation of three patents which were commenced on 30th November 2015 be listed as two separate trials within the twelve-month period contemplated by the Court's Practice Statement of 7th December 2015. Both trials will be heard as close as possible to 30th November 2015 if I grant this application.

  2. The background to this application is as follows. The claim is for revocation of three patents covering dosage regimes for the monoclonal antibody rituximab. Two of the patents covered dosage regimes for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia which the parties term "CLL". The third covers dosage regimes for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis which the parties term "RA".

  3. The earliest of the CLL patents, the '572 Patent, has been revoked by the Opposition Division of the EPO and an appeal is currently pending. The later of the CLL patents, which is the '313 Patent, is still in the opposition period with one opposition already having been filed. The RA patent, which is the '304 Patent, is currently under opposition.

  4. This action was served on the Defendants' representatives, Mewburn Ellis, on 30th November 2015, and the Defendants' solicitors, Herbert Smith, were instructed on behalf of the Second and Third Defendants on 9th December 2015 and on behalf of the First Defendant on 15th December 2015. Herbert Smith acknowledged service and requested a 28 day extension for service of the Defence until 27th January 2016, which was granted by the Court.

  5. Celltrion complains that the Defendants delayed in engaging with Bristows in order to list the trial. The Defendants' position was that they had instructed counsel who was not available until the second week of January because of the holiday period and other commitments.

  6. I do not consider that it would be right to criticise the Defendants or their representatives for the course of conduct that they have taken. Obviously, parties from whom instructions needed to be taken were away over the Christmas period. Nor is it right to criticise the Defendants for obtaining an extension of time for their Defence, which the Court saw fit to grant.

  7. I now turn to the...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL