Lilly Icos Ltd v Pfizer Ltd (No 2): CA 23 Jan 2002

The respondent sought an order to maintain the confidentiality of documents disclosed during patent revocation proceedings. It now appealed an order refusing confidentiality.
Held: Under normal circumstances, a party requesting such an order must provide clear reasons for it to be granted. The court should recognise the lack of protection which would attach to a document disclosed during proceedings but then, however it arose, coming into third party hands. In this case, the figures sought to be protected were figures for marketing costs. Patent cases were subject to the same general rules as any other cases, but did present some particular problems, and were subject to some particular considerations. The sensitivity of such figures was recognised, and the court should have granted protection, allowing for the limited part it played in the trial.


Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Buxton and Lord Justice Longmore


Times 28-Jan-2002, Gazette 06-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 2, [2002] 1 WLR 2253


Bailii, Bailii


Civil Procedure Rules 31.22


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedHRH the Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 13-Jan-2006
The claimant had for many years kept private journals, whose contents were circulated within a small circle of friends. He now sought to claim confidentiality and copyright in them when the defendant sought to publish them.
Held: There was an . .
CitedMcBride v The Body Shop International Plc QBD 10-Jul-2007
The claimant sought damages for libel in an internal email written by her manager, accusing her of being a compulsive liar. The email had not been disclosed save in Employment Tribunal proceedings, and the claimant sought permission to use the email . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules, Information

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167477