Teva Pharmacuetical Industries Limited & Anor v Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH
[2023] EWHC 3276 (Pat)
Cook UK Limited v Boston Scientific Limited & Anor
30 August 2023
[2023] EWHC 2163 (Pat)
High Court
Two companies fought over patents for medical tools. Before the judge finished deciding, they settled. A separate point was made about how transparent court decisions should be, even when made quickly without a full hearing; the judge stated that supporting documents for such decisions should be available to all affected parties.
Key Facts
- •Patent action between Cook UK Limited (Cook) and Boston Scientific Limited (Boston) concerning two patents: EP(UK) 3 023 061 ('061 Patent') and EP(UK) 3 443 915 ('915 Patent).
- •Cook denied infringement and claimed patent invalidity.
- •061 Patent expired before trial.
- •The case involved multiple parties and was transferred out of the Shorter Trials Scheme.
- •The parties settled the proceedings before the judge rendered a full judgment.
- •A key issue concerned the application of CPR rule 23.9 regarding disclosure of documents in a without-notice application under PD57AC paragraph 4.4.
- •Mr Justice Mellor made an order allowing Cook to modify witness statements, following a without-notice application.
Legal Principles
CPR rule 23.9 governs disclosure of documents in without-notice applications.
CPR rule 23.9
PD57AC paragraph 4.4 allows for variation of a certificate of compliance with witness statement requirements.
PD57AC paragraph 4.4
Orders made under PD57AC paragraph 4.4 impacting other parties trigger the requirements of CPR rules 23.9 and 23.10.
Judge's interpretation of CPR 23.9 and PD57AC 4.4
A judge making a decision on papers without a hearing is still exercising a public judicial function.
Judge's interpretation
Outcomes
The parties settled the case.
The parties reached a settlement agreement.
The judge ruled that CPR rule 23.9(2) applies to without-notice applications under PD57AC paragraph 4.4.
Orders made under paragraph 4.4 impacting other parties require disclosure as per CPR rule 23.9.
The judge's decision on the application under PD57AC paragraph 4.4, while made without a hearing, was a public judicial function and should be treated as such.
To ensure fairness and transparency, all supporting evidence should be available to the other party.
Similar Cases
SafeStand Limited v Weston Homes PLC & Ors.
[2023] EWHC 1098 (Pat)
Saint-Gobain Adfors SAS v 3M Innovative Properties Company
[2023] EWHC 2769 (Pat)
I-Smart Developments Limited v Currentbody.com Limited
[2024] EWHC 2889 (IPEC)
Excelerate Technology Limited v West Midlands Ambulance Service NHS University Foundation Trust & Anor
[2024] EWHC 177 (TCC)