High Court Ruling emphasises procedural clarity in complex IP litigation management

A significant decision was handed down recently in the High Court of Justice concerning the case of The University of Sheffield v Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Ors (2025 EWHC 1476 (Ch)). This ruling illustrates the vital role procedural clarity plays in litigation, especially regarding disclosure management and expert evidence, two critical components that can significantly affect the progress of legal proceedings.

The judgement arose from an application submitted by the claimant, the University of Sheffield, on 22 May 2025 during a case management conference held on 29 May 2025. Central to the application was the request for further information on the defendants' defence, which had been submitted on 28 August 2024. The court ordered the defendants to provide this information by 4pm on 7 October 2025, offering a crucial outline of the reasons behind the order and clarifying procedural expectations.

This case is part of the ongoing court oversight of procedural actions by both sides, representing the third judgement focused on procedural issues in the management of this claim. Previous judgements have clarified significant background issues related to the ongoing litigation, highlighting the essential connection between procedural clarity and substantive justice.

As the case advances, the trial is set to begin on 29 June 2026. The court has established a series of deadlines designed to ensure compliance with a structured timetable for efficient litigation management. For example, documents related to extended disclosure must be submitted by 4pm on 7 October 2025, and witness statements are to be exchanged by 4pm on 16 December 2025. These deadlines are instrumental in maintaining momentum and ensuring both parties are well-prepared.

A notable aspect of this judgement is the court's approval for both parties to present expert evidence regarding the valuation of the claimant's intellectual property claim and potential alternate collaboration terms. This complexity highlights how valuation disclosures can hinge on numerous hypothetical scenarios, adding layers of difficulty to the proceedings. The order requires experts in the same field to meet by 2 December 2025 for discussions aimed at narrowing contentious issues prior to submitting their reports. This directive reflects the court's intent to foster collaborative dialogue among experts to streamline the evidential process.

Despite these developments, challenges arose. The defendants raised technical objections concerning the claimant's requests for additional information, questioning adherence to specific rules and the necessity of a judicial order. Ultimately, the court deemed the request for information both valid and crucial for enabling informed expert testimony. The judge emphasised the need for clarity regarding the defendants' case to allow the claimant to instruct their expert adequately.

Additionally, the assessment of damages remained a contentious issue, with the defence proposing hypothetical structures for potential collaborations. The court recognised the need for the defendants to clarify their counterfactual case, balancing compliance burdens with reasonable timelines for information provision.

In summary, The University of Sheffield v Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Ors serves as a landmark case underscoring the essential nature of procedural clarity in complex litigation. The court's rulings emphasise the importance of transparency and responsibility from both parties throughout the litigation process, ensuring that both procedural and substantive justice are maintained amid intricate legal challenges.