Limitations on Granting Arrow Declarations for Foreign Proceedings: Teva UK Ltd & Anor v Novartis AG [2022] EWCA Civ 1617

1. Introduction

The case of Teva UK Ltd & Anor v Novartis AG ([2022] EWCA Civ 1617) presents a pivotal examination of the English courts’ jurisdiction to grant Arrow declarations—declarations that a particular product, process, or use was obvious or lacked novelty at a specific date—in situations where such declarations are sought solely to influence foreign court proceedings. This case underscores the boundaries of English judicial discretion, emphasizing the principle of comity and the prevention of jurisdictional overreach into matters governed by foreign law.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Teva UK Ltd ("Teva") sought an Arrow declaration asserting that generic fingolimod's use at a daily dose of 0.5 mg was obvious as of the priority date of a patent application held by Novartis AG ("Novartis"). The Court of Appeal dismissed Teva’s appeal, upholding the lower court’s refusal to grant the declaration. The core reasoning was that granting such a declaration solely to influence foreign courts would constitute an overextension of English judicial authority, contrary to principles of comity and international judicial respect. The court reinforced that declaratory relief must serve a useful purpose within the jurisdiction, not act as a tool for impacting foreign legal decisions.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced prior cases to delineate the scope and limitations of Arrow declarations:

• Messier-Dowty Ltd v Sabena Ltd [2000]: Established that declarations should be granted based on utility and justice, not merely jurisdiction.
• Arrow Generics Ltd v Merck & Co Inc [2007]: Defined Arrow declarations and their purpose in establishing a preemptive Gillette defence.
• Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics Co Ltd v AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd [2017]: Confirmed the Patents Court’s discretionary power to grant Arrow declarations and outlined conditions preventing their misuse.
• Glaxo Group Ltd v Vectura Ltd [2018]: Distinguished between statutory remedies and discretionary Arrow declarations, emphasizing the latter’s need for serving a useful purpose beyond jurisdictional boundaries.
• Pfizer Ltd v Hoffmann-La Roche AG [2019] and TQ Delta LLC v ZyXEL Communications UK Ltd [2019]: Reinforced the principle that declarations should not be tools for influencing foreign courts.
• Lisa Dräxlmaier GmbH v BOS GmbH & Co KG [2022]: Highlighted that declarations aimed solely at affecting foreign proceedings constitute an abuse of process.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The court navigated through several legal principles to reach its decision:

• Inherent Jurisdiction for Declaratory Relief: Grounded in CPR rule 40.20 and reinforced by the Messier-Dowty case, the Patents Court possesses inherent jurisdiction to grant declarations that aid justice.
• Discretionary Nature of Arrow Declarations: As established in Fujifilm and Glaxo, granting Arrow declarations is discretionary and must be justified by a useful purpose within the jurisdiction.
• Spin-off Value: The court acknowledged that while judgments can have persuasive value internationally, this alone does not justify granting a declaration meant to influence foreign courts.
• Comity and Jurisdictional Restraint: Emphasized the necessity for English courts to respect the jurisdiction of foreign courts, avoiding any form of judicial overreach or "jurisdictional imperialism."

3.3 Impact

This judgment sets a clear boundary for English courts regarding the issuance of Arrow declarations. It reinforces that such declarations must primarily serve a purpose within the UK legal framework and not be tools for influencing decisions in other jurisdictions. This precedent deters the misuse of the English legal system for international litigation strategies, promoting judicial respect and cooperation between nations.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

5. Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Teva UK Ltd & Anor v Novartis AG reinforces the principle that English courts must exercise judicial discretion responsibly, ensuring that declarations like Arrow declarations serve their intended purpose within the jurisdiction. By preventing the use of such declarations as mere tools for influencing foreign proceedings, the judgment upholds the integrity and respect of international judicial systems. This case serves as a crucial reference for future litigants seeking declaratory relief with international implications, clearly delineating the limits of English judicial assistance in foreign matters.