Texas Instruments Incorporated v Network System Technologies LLC
[2024] EWHC 1066 (Pat)
Samsung Bioepis UK Limited v Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc
6 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1407 (Pat)
High Court
Two companies are fighting over a drug patent. One company wants a fast trial because the other company's actions are hurting their sales. The judge agreed to a faster-than-usual trial, but not as fast as the first company wanted, balancing fairness for all sides.
Key Facts
- •Samsung Bioepis UK Limited (Samsung) applied for expedition of infringement and revocation proceedings against Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Alexion) concerning a European Patent (UK) for eculizumab, an antibody drug.
- •The proceedings involve an infringement action by Alexion against Samsung and a revocation action by Samsung against Alexion, both initiated on the same day as the patent grant.
- •Amgen, also involved in the infringement action, holds a neutral stance on the expedition application.
- •Parallel proceedings are ongoing in the Unified Patent Court (UPC).
- •The dispute centers on biosimilars of eculizumab, with Samsung and Amgen arguing against Alexion's claim of refreshed patent rights.
- •The case involves complex pleadings, with extensive prior art citations and potential file wrapper estoppel and abuse of process arguments.
- •The estimated trial duration is nine days.
- •Samsung argues for a trial in December 2024 due to a claimed 'chilling effect' on the market caused by Alexion's communication about patent rights to national authorities and prescribers.
- •Alexion argues against expedition, citing its counsel's and experts' availability issues.
Legal Principles
Expedition of patent trials requires demonstrating good reason, considering the impact on the administration of justice and prejudice to parties.
WL Gore & Associates v Geox [2008] EWCA Civ 622; Abbott v Dexcom [2021] EWHC 2245; Teva v Janssen [2021] EWHC 1922 (Pat); Petter v EMC [2015] EWCA Civ 480; DISH v Aylo [2024] EWHC 1310 (Pat)
Outcomes
The court granted expedition, scheduling the trial for no earlier than mid-February 2025.
The court found sufficient urgency in Samsung's argument regarding the potential chilling effect of Alexion's actions on the market for biosimilars. While not a 'cliff-edge' case, the court recognized the ongoing potential harm and the need for commercial certainty. The UPC proceedings were a secondary consideration. The court also considered and rejected Alexion's arguments regarding counsel and expert availability.