The High Court has rejected Edwards Lifesciences’ attempt to prevent Abbott from proceeding with an interlocutory injunction motion in a patent infringement case, finding that Edwards had not established that Abbott was abusing the court’s process.
Mr Justice Brian O’Moore’s ruling, delivered on 2 June 2020, concerned the next procedural steps for Abbott’s motion. It did not decide whether an injunction should be granted. Abbott had asked the court to set a hearing date and directions for evidence and written submissions. Edwards argued that no date or directions should be set because the motion was an abuse of process.
The judge said Edwards accepted that the motion could succeed and had not clearly alleged that Abbott brought it for an improper purpose. Edwards relied on claimed disruption to related litigation in other jurisdictions and the demands of the existing trial timetable. The judge found the logistical objections unconvincing, noting that Abbott’s counsel said its clients would meet the existing directions and Edwards did not dispute that point. He also noted that the motion hearing would not require oral evidence and could be followed remotely.
Edwards also argued that Abbott had not explained why it brought the motion when it did, months after an entry application. The judge said Abbott had repeatedly reserved its right to seek interlocutory relief, including in correspondence and at an earlier court hearing. In those circumstances, he found that the absence of an explanation for the timing did not make the motion an abuse of process or require Abbott to justify its timing simply to obtain a hearing date.
The court set a timetable for the parties’ evidence and written submissions. Edwards was allowed the time it had sought to deliver its replying affidavits. Abbott then has two weeks to provide further evidence and written submissions, followed by two weeks for Edwards to provide a second tranche of evidence and its submissions. The parties agreed that the motion hearing would require two days, and the judge fixed it for 30 and 31 July 2020.
The patent infringement action remains in the Commercial List, with a provisional trial date of 12 January 2021. The ruling addresses only whether Abbott could bring its injunction motion forward for a hearing; the motion’s merits remain for determination.