When re-litigating a patent may be permitted
In Resolution v Lundbeck, handed down on 12 April 2013, Arnold J has allowed a generic supplier company, Resolution Chemicals Ltd, to pursue its own revocation proceedings against Lundbeck’s SPC/GB02/049 protecting escitalopram, by way of challenge to the validity of its basic patent EP (UK) 0347066.
This is despite the fact that the validity of this patent had already been upheld in earlier litigation, in which one party was a member of the same corporate group as Resolution at the time, and two others belong to the same group as a company that Resolution now has commercial dealings with.
Can a party re-litigate a patent, or will they be estopped because they have a ‘privity of interest’ with a party to the decision of the earlier litigation? In this case, Arnold J has held that a party will be barred from relitigating for privity of interest if it has a “sufficient degree of identification” with the earlier litigants such that it is just to hold that the decision in the earlier case is binding on the re-litigant…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Taylor Wessing briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Taylor Wessing
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Taylor Wessing
The KORNSPITZ revocation case reminds brand owners that marks must act as badges of origin for the ultimate consumer of the goods, rather than intermediaries
The CJEU has given a procedural judgment in a trademark cancellation case, clarifying the ground rules for EU courts in assessing the legal arguments made before them.
Analysis from The Lawyer
The city-state is working hard to become a global wealth management hub, and law firms are gearing up for a prosperous new world
Financial disputes are starting to dominate the English courts as the long-awaited fallout from the downturn finally comes to town