Cook UK Limited vs Boston Scientific Limited

This case involved a patent dispute between Cook UK Limited and Boston Scientific Limited, focusing on the infringement and validity of patents related to medical devices used in gastroenterology.

TLDR:

• Cook UK Limited filed a revocation claim against Boston Scientific Limited's patents.
• Boston Scientific counterclaimed for patent infringement.
• The patents in question were related to hemostatic clips used in endoscopic procedures.
• The case was settled before a final judgment was issued.
• The court discussed compliance with PD57AC during the trial.

The claimant, Cook UK Limited, initiated a revocation claim under the Shorter Trials Scheme against Boston Scientific Limited, alleging that two of Boston's patents were invalid. The patents in question were European Patent (UK) 3 023 061 (the '061 Patent') and European Patent (UK) 3 443 915 (the '915 Patent'), both concerning hemostatic clips used in endoscopic procedures to treat gastroenterological conditions.

Boston Scientific Limited, along with its associated companies, counterclaimed for patent infringement, asserting that Cook UK Limited had infringed upon the '061 and '915 Patents. Both parties are prominent in the development, manufacture, and supply of medical devices, particularly in the field of gastroenterology.

The trial took place over six hearing days in the Patents Court and included post-trial submissions. During the proceedings, the court examined various aspects of the patents, including their validity and the alleged infringement. The '061 Patent had expired on 20th September 2022, while the '915 Patent was filed on 30th September 2004 and granted on 24th March 2021.

Before the judgment was finalized, the parties reached a settlement, resolving the dispute. Despite the settlement, the court addressed an important procedural issue related to compliance with Practice Direction 57AC (PD57AC) concerning trial witness evidence.

Boston Scientific took issue with Cook's application under paragraph 4.4 of PD57AC, which sought to vary the certificate of compliance required by paragraph 4.3. Mr Justice Mellor had previously made an order allowing modifications to Cook's witness statements to include references to provisions of the Statement of Best Practice that were not complied with during their preparation.

Boston argued that it should have been provided with Cook's application notice and supporting evidence, citing CPR rule 23.9. Cook denied this entitlement. Ultimately, Boston did not formally apply for these documents, and the court did not need to determine the issue.

The court considered whether an order made under paragraph 4.4 of PD57AC triggered the requirements of CPR rules 23.9 and 23.10, which mandate the provision of application notices and supporting evidence to other parties. The court concluded that such orders do indeed trigger these requirements, emphasizing the importance of transparency and the right to a fair hearing.

In summary, the case highlighted significant procedural and substantive issues in patent litigation, particularly concerning compliance with PD57AC and the handling of evidence in complex patent disputes.

Legal representatives: Iain Purvis KC and Tom Alkin (instructed by Powell Gilbert LLP) for the Claimant and Fourth to Seventh parties, James Abrahams KC and Michael Conway (instructed by Simmons & Simmons LLP) for the Defendants and Third party.

Judicial Panel: Mr Campbell Forsyth (Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Case Citation Reference: [2023] EWHC 2163 (Pat)