COOK (UK) LIMITED v BOSTON SCIENTIFIC LIMITED & Ors

In patent case management, the court may refuse to add detailed allegations or disclosure requirements to a CMC order where the existing procedural rules and the parties’ disclosure obligations adequately address the issues. A process or product description and supplemental disclosure are linked aspects of the disclosure obligation and must adequately address the infringement case advanced. The court will assess proposed additional wording in the context of proportionality, reasonableness, the evidence available and any identified prejudice. Extensions of time may be granted where the relevant obligations are intertwined and no material prejudice is shown.

This was a further decision following a case management conference in patent infringement proceedings between Cook and Boston. The court had already determined issues at the CMC and was asked to resolve consequential matters concerning the content of Cook’s process or product description and supplemental disclosure, including proposed wording about user feedback and tactile resistance.

The court also had to determine disputed deadlines for service of the process or product description and Boston’s statement of case on validity. The relevant CMC decision was reported as [2022] EWHC 2060 (Pat).

1. Disclosure requirements. The obligations governing disclosure in patent proceedings, including the requirement that a process or product description be adequate to address the infringement allegation, applied to Cook’s process or product description and supplemental disclosure. Cook had indicated that it would provide supplemental disclosure under paragraph 11.5 of the Patents Court Guide. A reasonable search and disclosure statement were therefore required under the existing procedural framework.
2. Proposed order wording. Boston’s proposed paragraphs describing particular matters concerning audible or tactile feedback, tactile resistance and related documents were not added to the order. They further explained Boston’s allegations, but the obligation to address those allegations adequately was already established. The court also declined the alternative provision requiring specified disclosure from the US discovery database, since there was insufficient evidence concerning the suitability and proportionality of that search.
3. Extensions of time. The process or product description and supplemental disclosure were linked and had to be prepared in parallel. In the absence of identified prejudice, the deadline for service of the process or product description was extended to 2 September 2022. The deadline for Boston’s statement of case on validity was extended to 23 September 2022, having regard to the additional work required for disclosure and the absence of prejudice.

First-instance decision following the case management conference decision reported as [2022] EWHC 2060 (Pat).