Autor
Paul England

Paul England, DPhil

Senior Professional Support Lawyer

Read More
Autor
Paul England

Paul England, DPhil

Senior Professional Support Lawyer

Read More

30. Juli 2020

Synapse - July 2020 – 6 von 6 Insights

Patent diary – July 2020: Court refuses to strike out Chiesi's quia timet injunction claim

  • QUICK READ

In the context of pharmaceutical patent cases involving branded originator patents and generic competitors, it's often (but not always) accepted that infringing market entry will cause unquantifiable damage by irreversible price depression, and therefore the only appropriate remedy is a preliminary injunction.

A clear statement by the offeror that the product will not enter the market until after patent expiry will, nonetheless, normally be sufficient to defeat a preliminary injunction against a party making an offer before expiry. 

Without such reassurance, however, activity suggesting that pre-expiry infringing acts are probable may be the subject of a quia timet preliminary injunction (that is, an injunction in advance, to prevent the infringement happening). 

In such cases, the court has to ask whether:

"…viewed in all the relevant circumstances, there was a sufficiently strong probability that an injunction would be required to prevent the harm to the claimant to justify bringing the proceedings. ..."

A mere possibility is not enough. 

It is not necessary, however, for a marketing authorisation to have been granted for quia timet relief to be awarded. So says Mr Justice Birss in Teva UK Ltd v Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA [2020] EWHC 1311 (Pat). In this case, Teva had started revocation proceedings against three patents relating to a combination of beclomethasone and formoterol in an inhaler. They had not yet obtained a marketing authorisation, but took care to make no statement either way about their intentions to launch before patent expiry.

Instead, they had offered 14 days notice of any launch. Chiesi counterclaimed for infringement of all three patents on a quia timet basis, on the footing that the claimant threatened and intended to infringe. Teva applied to have the counterclaim struck out on the basis that there was no threat or intention to infringe.

Birss J did not think there was any legal principle that a quia timet action cannot even be advanced without a marketing authorisation being pleaded, and found that Teva’s refusal to confirm its launch plans created a strong inference of the intention to launch before expiry, or that it sought to reserve the possibility of doing so: 

"If the claimant had wished to say that it did not intend to launch unless it succeeded in revoking the patent, then it had a clear opportunity to do so in the exchange of correspondence. It did not.">

As an application to strike out, the question for the court was not whether the pleaded material proved threatened and/or intended infringement, but only whether there is a real prospect of success of establishing that at trial. In this case there was such a prospect and the strike out application failed.

Forum: English Patents Court

Date: 2 June 2020

In dieser Serie

Life Sciences & Healthcare

Licensing out: Try not to get benched

IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS

von Colin McCall, Justyna Ostrowska

Life Sciences & Healthcare

US buys up entire stock of remdesivir

Time to intervene?

QUICK READ

von Judith Krens

Life Sciences & Healthcare

Dissecting the Regeneron v Kymab mouse case – what it says and its impact on patents

QUICK READ

von Mehrere Autoren

Synapse

Private equity investment in life sciences sector

IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS

von Mehrere Autoren

Call To Action Arrow Image

Newsletter-Anmeldung

Wählen Sie aus unserem Angebot Ihre Interessen aus!

Jetzt abonnieren
Jetzt abonnieren

Related Insights

stethoscope
Life Sciences & Healthcare

Targeted treatments – Part 4: patenting digital devices

16. Oktober 2020
Briefing

von Paul England, DPhil

Klicken Sie hier für Details
pills
Life Sciences & Healthcare

Targeted treatments – Part 3: the power of orphan drug protection

15. Oktober 2020
Quick read

von Paul England, DPhil

Klicken Sie hier für Details
pills
Life Sciences & Healthcare

Patents diary June 2020: UK Supreme Court holds Regeneron's transgenic mice patents invalid

26. Juni 2020
IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS

von Paul England, DPhil

Klicken Sie hier für Details