Lilly appealed against a finding that an Actavis drug had not infringed its patents to the limited extent of holding that there would be indirect infringement in four jurisdictions, but they agreed with the Judge that there would be no direct infringement. The appeal raised the issue of the correct approach under UK law (and the law of the three other states) to the interpretation of patent claims, and in particular the requirement of EPC 2000 to take account of ‘equivalents’, and also the extent to which it is permissible to make use of the prosecution history of a patent when determining its scope.
Longmore, Kitchin, Floyd LJJ
 EWCA Civ 555,  Bus LR 1068,  WLR(D) 274,  RPC 6
European Patent Convention 2000, Patents Act 1977 66
England and Wales
Appeal from – Eli Lilly v Actavis UK Ltd and Others SC 12-Jul-2017
The issue raised on this appeal and cross-appeal is whether three products manufactured by Actavis would infringe a patent whose proprietor is Lilly, namely European Patent (UK) No 1 313 508, and its corresponding designations in France, Italy and . .
See Also – Actavis UK Ltd and Others v Eli Lilly and Company PatC 12-Nov-2015
application by Actavis for judgment on admissions seeking a declaration. . .
Main Appeal – Actavis UK Ltd and Others v Eli Lilly and Company CA 30-Jun-2015
i) The form of order for costs of the trial and the appeal;
ii) What should happen to the interim payment made by Lilly in the court below, and whether there should be an interim payment of any costs awarded under . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 February 2021; Ref: scu.549459