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

Cross undertaking for damages negated by extra-national infringement

No items found.
​
April 26, 2011
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
Life
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

In this case the patentee Servier had obtained an injunction against the defendant Apotex for the sale of a generic copy of the drug Perindopril Erbumine. Perindopril Erbumine was covered by a European patent (UK) granted in February 2004. The injunction was granted in August 2006 pending trial in the UK and contained a cross-undertaking by Servier for any losses sustained by the defendant due to the injunction.

In both the initial trial, in July 2007, and the subsequent appeal in May 2008 Servier’s patent was held to be infringed, but invalid.

However, to complicate matters, the Perindopril Erbumine imported into the UK had been manufactured by the defendant in Canada from where it had been exported. In a decision in June 2009, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal had held this manufacture to be an infringement of a valid Canadian patent held by Servier.

Since the cross undertaking specified that: “If the Court later finds that this order has caused loss to the Defendants ... and decides that the Defendants should be compensated for that loss, the Claimants will comply with any Order the Court may make”, the Court was asked to determine if damages were to be awarded in view of the public policy point that Apotex could not recover damages for being prevented from selling a material whose manufacture would have been unlawful because it infringed a valid foreign patent.

Arnold J found that, although Apotex’s UK business in importing and selling the product was not in itself unlawful, it relied on the illegal (patent infringing) act of manufacturing the product in, and exporting it from, Canada, This was sufficient for the award of damages to be barred by the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio (“from a dishonourable cause an action does not arise”).

In making this ruling, Arnold J noted that the unlawfulness does not necessarily require dishonest or criminal acts, but must be sufficiently serious for the ex turpi causa rule to be engaged, something that would depend on the circumstances of the case.

Arnold J ruled that the illegality was sufficiently serious in this case, since:

  • Apotex's illegal act (infringement of the Canadian Patent) was not induced by Servier; nor was Apotex misled by Servier in any way;
  • Apotex was aware of all the material facts; in particular, Apotex was aware that making Perindopril Erbumine would infringe the Canadian Patent if valid;
  • Apotex committed the infringing acts intentionally, and while it was noted that Apotex had respectable arguments that the Canadian Patent was invalid, Apotex had decided to take the commercial risk that the patent would be held valid and infringed; and
  • There was a precise symmetry between Apotex's claim for compensation under the cross-undertaking and the illegality upon which Servier relied; that is, Apotex had to rely upon its own illegality to a substantial extent to establish the loss claimed.

Whilst this decision was dependant on the facts at hand, which will vary between cases, this nevertheless demonstrates the importance of considering all relevant jurisdictions when assessing patent enforcement in relation to international trade.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Invalidity of juicer patent upheld on appeal
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of Hurom’s juicer patent for lack of inventive step, while clarifying the admissibility requirements for patent amendments and the use of the unamended description when construing amended claims. It also confirmed the UPC’s jurisdiction over infringement in Poland despite Poland not being a UPCA Contracting Member State, but found that Hurom had failed to establish infringement under Polish law.
​
Evidence preservation doesn’t stretch to interrogation
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that evidence-preservation orders may be granted ex parte where there is a demonstrable risk that evidence could be destroyed or become unavailable, and that such orders may extend to relevant commercial and promotional documents. However, Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant’s personnel on substantive technical matters, which must instead be handled under the Court’s control.
​
UPC Court of Appeal clarifies claim construction, the role of party experts, and provisional measures in direct-competition cases
03 November 2026
The CoA’s decision of 30 April 2025 in Insulet v EOFlow provides important guidance on claim construction, the role of party-appointed experts and the requirements for provisional injunctions.
​