Cairnstores Ltd. Generics (UK) Ltd. & Anor v Aktiebolaget Hassle

Factual and Procedural Background

On 6th March 2002, Judge Laddie delivered a judgment in conjoined actions seeking revocation of two European patents (UK) held by Company A. The claimants in the revocation actions were Company B and Company C. The judge found both patents obvious and therefore invalid. Company A appealed, primarily challenging the conduct of the judge during the trial, particularly during cross-examination of their expert witness, asserting that the judge showed apparent bias and that this resulted in an unfair trial. The patents concerned an oral pharmaceutical formulation of a drug known as omeprazole, which is acid labile and requires protection from stomach acid to reach the intestines intact. The patents claimed a formulation involving an enteric coating and a separating subcoating layer to enhance stability and prevent degradation of the active ingredient. The appeal focused on both the substantive patent issues and the alleged procedural unfairness during trial.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge's conduct during the cross-examination of the expert witness for Company A demonstrated apparent bias sufficient to render the trial unfair.
2. Whether the patents held by Company A were invalid on the grounds of obviousness.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Company A)

• The judge's interventions during the cross-examination of their expert witness created an appearance of bias, effectively siding with the claimants.
• The judge's active questioning deprived him of the ability to observe the expert witness's demeanour dispassionately, amounting to a descent into the arena.
• The cumulative effect of the judge's interventions constituted "judicial brow-beating," unfairly pressuring the expert witness and denying Company A a fair trial.
• They relied on principles from case law concerning apparent bias and the right to a fair trial under common law and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Respondent's Arguments (Claimants)

• The judge's interventions were appropriate, aimed at clarifying inconsistencies and encouraging clear answers from an experienced expert witness.
• The extent and nature of the judge's questioning were justified given the complexity and importance of the issues.
• The trial as a whole was fair, and the judge did not exhibit bias or unfairness in his conduct.
• Even if some interventions were forceful, they did not amount to oppression or unfairness that would invalidate the trial.
• Any complaint about the judge's conduct was waived by Company A by the conclusion of the trial.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by reviewing the patents and the factual background related to the drug formulation, confirming the judge's findings on obviousness based on the evidence and expert testimony. The court carefully analysed the conduct of the judge during the cross-examination of the appellant's expert witness. It acknowledged the appellant's concern that the judge's active involvement could indicate apparent bias and undermine the fairness of the trial, citing relevant case law on apparent bias and fair trial rights.

However, after detailed examination of the transcript and the context of the judge's interventions, the court concluded that the judge's questions were aimed at clarifying inconsistencies and eliciting clear explanations rather than unfairly pressuring the witness. The court rejected the characterization of the judge's conduct as "judicial brow-beating" and found no evidence that the interventions deprived the appellant of a fair hearing.

The court also emphasized that the nature and extent of the judge's questioning must be assessed in light of the complexity of the issues and the witness's experience. It found that the judge did not descend into the arena in a way that compromised his impartiality or the trial's fairness. The cumulative effect of the judge's conduct was not sufficient to establish a real danger of injustice or bias.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal on the grounds of procedural unfairness and affirmed the original finding of obviousness and invalidity of the patents.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the judge's conduct during the trial did not amount to apparent bias or render the trial unfair. The original judgment invalidating the patents on grounds of obviousness was upheld. The decision directly affects the parties by confirming the invalidity of the patents and denying the appellant relief on procedural fairness grounds. The court did not establish new precedent but reaffirmed established principles on judicial conduct and fair trial rights.