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 (i);
iii) Whether the order should recite the terms of a letter from Actavis’s solicitors dated 17 April 2013;
iv) Whether there should be permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Longmore, Kitchin, Floyd LJJ
 EWCA Civ 666
England and Wales
Main Appeal – Actavis UK Ltd and Others v Eli Lilly and Company CA 25-Jun-2015
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 . .
Leave – 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 . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 February 2021; Ref: scu.631392