REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - BEYOND THE HYPE: AI IN PATENT PROSECUTION
​

Resolution Chemicals Ltd v H. Lundbeck A/S: SPCs and privity

No items found.
​
April 18, 2013
Additional information
Chevron icon
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Darren Smyth’s latest IPKat post concerns the recent decision on a preliminary point in Resolution Chemicals Ltd v H. Lundbeck A/S, and Lundbeck’s SPC for escitalopram.

The case was an action for revocation of Lundbeck’s SPC for invalidity of the underlying patent, and the judgement mainly concerned whether Resolution was estopped from bringing the action by privity of interest with the claimants in an earlier case relating to the same SPC.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending risks liability for defendant’s costs
24 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that setting aside a first-instance decision granting relief subject to recurring penalties generally has retroactive effect. Any penalty fees already paid will be refunded by the Court. The value of proceedings is determined by the interest of the party that brought the action. This is not changed as a result of an appeal. A claimant bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending does so at its own risk and may be liable for the defendant’s costs related to the enforcement proceedings.‍
​
Replacement parts and the value of asserting a narrower claim combination
17 July 2026
The UPC's Düsseldorf Local Division found that Wessper's cartridges indirectly infringed Brita's patent, and that a narrower claim combination can turn a consumable into an essential element.
​
Preliminary objection on jurisdiction partially successful – UPC clarifies requirements of anchor-defendant jurisdiction for non-UPC territories
25 June 2026
The Hamburg Local Division let Nixu pursue US-based Infoblox in the UPC for Germany, France and Finland, but threw out the UK claim. To reach a non-UPC territory through an anchor defendant, a claimant must plead joint infringement there.
​