Miss Charlotte May KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
Miss Charlotte May KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge):
Introduction
This is my reserved judgment following the application by the Claimant for interim injunctive relief against the Defendant. The Claimant seeks an order restraining the Defendant until judgment or further order in the meantime from supplying or offering to supply, disposing or offering to dispose, using or importing in the United Kingdom a product called the “Seplou Sheath”. The Seplou Sheath is an endourology device known as a ureteral access sheath (UAS). It is used in a procedure called endoscopic renal lithotripsy, a common urological procedure for the treatment of kidney stones.
The Claimant alleges that the Defendant’s dealings (actual or threatened) in the Seplou Sheath in the United Kingdom infringe the patent in suit in these proceedings, EP(UK) 3 760 143 B1 (the Patent). The Defendant denies infringement, and counterclaims for invalidity on various grounds. There is a preliminary point of detail as to whether the Claimant is the proprietor of the Patent. There is also a dispute on this application as to what dealings the Defendant has already undertaken and when, which is relevant to the analysis of the balance of convenience and status quo. I return to these points below.
The Claim Form was issued on 15 February 2024, and the application for interim relief was issued the following day. After some dispute between the parties, the hearing was fixed for 10 April 2024. At the hearing, I had the benefit of written and oral submissions from Mr Davis KC who appeared on behalf of the Claimant with Mr Zweck, and from Mr Tritton on behalf of the Defendant, as well as evidence filed by both parties. I am grateful to all those who were involved in the preparation of these materials.
- Heading
- Miss Charlotte May KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
- Background
- Applicable Legal Principles
- Is the Claimant the proprietor of the Patent?
- Quality of the Defendant’s evidence
- Trial Listing
- Stage 1: Serious issue to be tried?
- Stage 2: Are damages an adequate remedy for the Claimant?
- Loss of Market Exclusivity
- Defendant’s alleged derogatory statements
- Price Depression
- Quantification of damage
- Stage 3: If not, are damages an adequate remedy for the Defendant?
- Lost sales of convoyed goods
- Reputational Damage
- Difficulty in enforcing a judgment in China for damages under the cross-undertaking
- Stage 4: If damages are not an adequate remedy for either side, where does the balance of convenience lie?
- Conclusions
![IP-2024-000024 - [2024] EWHC 951 (IPEC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AacSvIO.png)