< Back to latest news & events

News

Prominence given to the preservation of the status quo

May 2022

The Court of Appeal has stayed an interim injunction to allow Mylan’s generic to remain on the market in a bid to preserve the status quo, despite recognising that damages could be an inadequate remedy for Neurim, if Mylan is infringing its patent.

This is the latest instalment in a series of decisions between Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd & Anor (“Neurim”) and Generics (UK) Ltd & Anor (t/a “Mylan”). Neurim exclusively licensed EP1441702 (the “Parent”) to Flynn Pharma who market Circadin, a drug which treats insomnia. The Parent has been subject to the following back and forth between the EPO and Court:

20 November 2019:

The Opposition Division held that the Parent lacked novelty and revoked it. Revocation was suspended when Neurim appealed.

14 February 2020:

Neurim brought an infringement claim in the Patents Court.

02 March 2020:

Neurim applied for an interim injunction in the Patents Court to restrain Mylan from launching a generic version of Circadin.The injunction was refused but directions were given for an expedited trial.

24 June 2020:

Neurim appealed the interim injunction decision. The Court of Appeal refused the appeal on grounds that Neurim would be adequately compensated by an award of damages for losses suffered by it as a result of any infringing acts before the expedited trial.

04 December 2020:

The Patents Court held that the Parent (as proposed to be amended) was valid and had been infringed.

18 December 2020:

The Board of Appeal orally announced that the Parent was invalid for insufficiency. The Parent was revoked when Neurim withdrew its appeal.

 

This particular decision relates to Neurim’s EP3103443 (the “Divisional”), whose claims are patentably indistinct from the Parent (as amended).

On 10 February 2022 the Patents Court found Mylan had infringed the (valid) Divisional on the papers. This decision was followed by an oral hearing where the Court maintained its reasoning. Therefore, Neurim was granted an injunction to restrain Mylan from infringing. Clearly, the Court did not follow the Board of Appeal’s insufficiency findings in relation to the identical Parent (nor is it required to).

The Court of Appeal granted Mylan permission to appeal. Expedition was deemed appropriate in light of the Divisional’s August 2022 expiry. As such, the question before the Court was whether to grant a short-term interim injunction.

Lord Justice Arnold found that Neurim could be adequately compensated by a damages award because:

  • the expedited trial would result in a short window for infringements; and
  • evidence didn’t suggest the stay would give generic suppliers a “green light” to come on the market during that window.

The Court held that disrupting the status quo would undermine Mylan’s gained advantage as the first generic supplier on the market, with a right of first refusal of future contracts to supply pharmacies. The Court were persuaded that quantifying Mylan’s loss of sales would be difficult if it granted the injunction.

Lord Justice Birss concurred that the preservation of the status quo was the decisive factor. Notwithstanding that, he emphasised that due to the uncertainties and complexities in the case, there would be broad margins for numerical error in any damages assessment subsequent to an appeal decision.

The Court made reference to Neurim’s ongoing proceedings against Teva, in relation to Teva’s generic equivalent of Circadin. Without pre-judging the outcome of those proceedings, the Court noted that, in accordance with the status quo, Mylan are the sole generic incumbent, and Teva are not on the market.

Parties seeking an interlocutory injunction ought to bear in mind that the status quo will have a critical influence on the Court’s decision.

Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd & Anor v Generics (UK) Ltd & Anor (Rev2) [2022] EWCA Civ 370


This article was prepared by HGF IP Solicitor Christie Batty.

Latest updates

The EPO Board of Appeal comments on the scope of the morality exclusion from patentability

The recent decision, T1553/22 of the Board of Appeal required the Board to consider the scope of the exclusions from patentability under Article 53(a) EPC. The invention in this case …

Read article

Can intellectual property and foreign investment save struggling European eVTOL companies?

With the ongoing funding difficulties in the European eVTOL sector, we look at the role that intellectual property is likely to play in the prospects for the survival of Lilium …

Read article

Managing IP EMEA Awards 2025

The shortlist for the 20th annual Managing IP EMEA Awards 2025 has been announced, and it is a record-breaking year for HGF’s European team with an incredible 23 nominations! This …

Read article

Designation of a technical standard as a trademark

EUTMR Article 7 (1) (c) and Article 7 (1) (b) – DASH The designation “DASH” of the technical standard/protocol/format for streaming data on the Internet constitutes a descriptive indication in …

Read article

HGF ranked band 4 in Chambers and Partners Global Guide for Germany in 2025

Chambers and Partners Global Guide 2025 is now live. HGF is proud to be ranked as a firm in Germany. HGF is ranked band 4 for: Germany: Intellectual Property: Patent …

Read article

HGF ranked in The Legal 500 Germany 2025

HGF is proud to be ranked in The Legal 500 Germany 2025 guide. The Legal 500 provides the most comprehensive worldwide coverage on recommended Law firms, Lawyers, Attorneys, Advocates, Solicitors, …

Read article

T 1847/22: Procedural considerations in appeal: Re-ordering of requests and the impact on admissibility

Background This case concerned EP 3 085 344 B1, which relates to a wound pad, a self-adhesive member comprising a wound pad. The patent was opposed by two opponents. During …

Read article