Celltrion Inc v Biogen Idec Inc & Ors

The Patents Court may actively manage patent proceedings to achieve a trial within, or shortly after, twelve months of issue where practicable. Parties are expected to cooperate by considering trial dates promptly. A split trial is appropriate where separate patent claims involve materially different priority dates, technical subject matter or common general knowledge, even if there is some overlap and common expert evidence. The fact that pleadings have not closed does not necessarily make early listing premature where the issues and likely trial length can be assessed. Trial dates may be fixed subject to review at the case management conference.

Celltrion sought directions for revocation proceedings concerning three patents covering dosage regimes for rituximab. Two patents concerned chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and one concerned rheumatoid arthritis. Celltrion applied for two separate trials within the twelve-month period contemplated by the Patents Court Practice Statement of 7 December 2015.

The defendants opposed the application as premature, relying on the uncertainty concerning pleadings, disclosure, expert evidence, foreign law and the possible participation of Hospira, which had issued related revocation proceedings. The central issues were whether the proceedings should be split and whether trial dates should be fixed before the case management conference.

1. Active case management. The Practice Statement represented an important change in the management of patent cases. The court should actively manage proceedings, consistently with CPR rule 1.1, to bring them on for trial within twelve months wherever possible. Parties must cooperate in identifying and discussing trial dates promptly.
2. Split trial. The court should consider the overlap between the proceedings, but also the extent to which separate trials would avoid confusion and promote efficient preparation. Here, the chronic lymphocytic leukaemia patents and the rheumatoid arthritis patent had priority dates seven years apart and concerned materially different indications and technical considerations. Those differences outweighed the overlap, including the possibility that some experts would be common to both trials.
3. Early listing. The absence of closed pleadings did not prevent an order. The issues were sufficiently apparent, the estimated duration could be assessed, and any substantial change in the burden of disclosure or trial length could be addressed at the case management conference. Hospira’s participation did not alter the decision because it relied on the same objections; a materially different position could justify separate treatment.
4. Authority and order. The principles identified in Electrical Waste Recycling Group Ltd v Philips Electronics Ltd [2012] EWHC 38 (Ch) were taken into account, but the present question differed from splitting liability and quantum. The court ordered two successive trials, heard by the same judge, as close as possible to 30 November 2016, with a short break between them. The case management conference was to take place later, after pleadings had closed, with liberty for the court to vacate the dates if impracticable.

First instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.