EPLAW Patent Blog

UK - Les Laboratoires Servier v. Apotex / damages

Les Laboratoires Servier, Servier Laboratories Limited v. Apotex Inc, Apotex Pharmachem Inc, Apotex Europe Limited and Apotex UK Limited, High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, London, UK, 29 March 2011, Case No. [2011] EWHC 730 (Pat)

The issue decided in this case is whether a patentee who has obtained an interim injunction from a court to restrain infringement of a European patent (UK) which is subsequently held invalid should compensate the defendant for losses sustained as a result of being prevented by the injunction from selling goods manufactured by the defendant in infringement of a valid foreign patent owned by the same group of companies.

Servier contends that, as a matter of public policy, Apotex cannot recover damages for being prevented from selling a material whose manufacture would have been unlawful because it infringed a valid foreign patent. This is an application of the rule of law identified by the Latin maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio (no action can arise from an illegal or immoral act), also known as the illegality defence.

Justice Arnold concludes that Apotex’s claim is barred by the ex turpi causa rule. It follows that Apotex must repay Servier the money which Norris J ordered Servier to pay Apotex.

Read the earlier post here.

Read the judgment (in English) here.
 

UK - Les Laboratoires Servier v. Apotex Inc

Les Laboratoires Servier & ANR v. Apotex Inc & ANR, Court of Appeal, Civil division, London, UK, 9 July 2007, Case No. (2007) EWCA Civ 783, with thanks to Marc Döring and Rowan Freeland, Simmons & Simmons

On 09 July 2007, the English Court of Appeal clarified the guidance it gave in Pozzoli SPA v BDMO SA (and others) as to when leave to appeal should be granted in complicated patent cases. Perhaps more interestingly, its judgment also shed light on the possibilities of obtaining interim injunctions pending appeal when a patent has been revoked.

Read the extended summary (provided by Rowan Freeland) here.

Read the Court of Appeal decision (in English) here.

Read the post on Pozzoli here.

UK - SmithKline Beecham v Apotex Europe Ltd

SmithKline Beecham plc and others v. Apotex Europe Ltd and others, Court of Appeal, London, UK, 23 May 2006, Case No. [2006] EWCA civ 658, with thanks to Marc Döring and Rowan Freeland, Simmons & Simmons

In patent infringement and revocation proceedings, SmithKline Beecham had been granted an interim injunction prohibiting Apotex Europe from dealing with the drug, paroxetine, in the UK. SmithKline Beecham had given a cross-undertaking to Apotex Europe (and its UK distributors).

The injunction was subsequently held to have been "wrongfully" granted. Apotex then sought to include two affiliate Canadian companies in the action and for them to gain the benefit of the cross-undertaking. At first instance, Apotex's arguments based on restitution and third party loss (under quasi-contractual principles) were struck out but an estoppel argument was upheld as arguable, if weak. Both sides appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed Apotex's appeal on both counts and upheld SmithKline Beecham's appeal.

Read the extended summary (provided by Rowan Freeland) here.

Read the first instance decision (in English) here.
Read the appeal decision (in English) here.