|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Patents Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Patents Court) Decisions >> Celltrion Inc v Biogen Idec Inc & Ors  EWHC 188 (Pat) (22 January 2016)
Cite as:  EWHC 188 (Pat)
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
7 Rolls Buildings
London, EC4A 1NL
B e f o r e :
| CELLTRION INC.
|- and -
|(1) BIOGEN IDEC INC.
(2) F. HOFFMANN-LA-ROCHE AG
(3) GENENTECH INC.
First Floor, Quality House, 6ľ9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP.
DX 410 LDE
Telephone No: 020 7067 2900. Fax No: 020 7831 6864
Email : email@example.com
MR. TOM MOODY-STUART (instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP) appeared for the Defendants
MR. JAMES WHYTE (instructed by Taylor Wessing LLP) for Hospira, interested party
Crown Copyright ©
MR. JUSTICE HENRY CARR:
"The Patents Court endeavours to bring patent cases on for trial where possible within 12 months of the claim being issued. To this end, the following procedure will be adopted.
1. The parties will be expected (a) to start to consider potential trial dates as soon as is reasonably practicable after the service of the proceedings and (b) to discuss and attempt to agree trial dates with each other when seeking to agree directions for trial.
2. The starting point for listing trials is the current applicable Trial Window advertised by the Chancery List Office. Patent cases will be listed on the basis that the Trial Windows are divided as follows: Estimated hearing time (excluding pre-reading and preparation of closing submissions) up to 5 days; estimated hearing time (excluding pre-reading and preparation of closing submissions) 6 to 10 days; and estimated hearing (excluding pre-reading and preparation of closing submissions) over 10 days.
3. Where it will enable a case to be tried within 12 months, or shortly thereafter, the Court may list a trial up to one month earlier than the applicable Trial Window without the need for any application for expedition.
4. The Court will use its case management powers in a more active manner than hitherto, with a view to dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost in accordance with CPR rule 1.1. This may have the effect of setting limits on hearing times that enable cases to be listed promptly. For example, the Court may direct that a case estimated at 6 days will be heard in 5 days, and may allocate time between the parties in a manner which enables that to be achieved.
5. Where it makes a significant difference to the time which cases must wait to be listed for trial and it will not cause significant prejudice to any party, cases may be listed without reference to the availability of counsel instructed by the parties."
"13.10 A European Patent granted pursuant to the European Patent Convention is a bundle of national patents. This gives claimants a broad international choice of forum, but means that the Patents Court now faces competition from a number of European courts. The responses to consultation suggest that the Patents Court is, comparatively, very highly regarded for the quality of its decision-making, and is indeed the forum of choice for those with large scale disputes meriting substantial trials within the EU, and from further afield.
13.11 There is nonetheless real concern that, because patent cases are listed for trial alongside the generality of chancery cases, with no built-in priority, the current waiting time of about fourteen months from setting down compares unfavourably with the time which the German patent court takes to reach a decision on infringement. The apprehended result is that the patent litigation industry in the UK faces stiff competition where the parties' commercial priority is for a speedy outcome rather than perfect justice (as it often is)ů."