Arbitral Digest

Matter

CicloMulsion AG v NeuroVive Pharmaceutical AB (Scania and Blekinge Court of Appeal, 12 January 2018)

Applicable rules
SCC Arbitration Rules
  1. 12 June 2014Arbitration

    12 June 2014Arbitration

    Procedural Order No. 10 (PO 10), 12 June 2014

    SCC Arbitration Institute

    Decision summary
    The tribunal established assumptions for the continuing arbitration, including that royalty entitlement covered pre-launch payments and was not conditional on first launch, and required notice and an opportunity to be heard before departing from those assumptions.

    Supporting details

    2 participants
    CicloMulsion AG
    NeuroVive Pharmaceutical AB
    SCC Arbitration Institute

    8 months and 11 days later · 256 days

  2. 23 February 2015Arbitration

    23 February 2015Arbitration

    Procedural Order No. 16 (PO 16), 23 February 2015

    SCC Arbitration Institute

    Supporting details

    2 participants
    CicloMulsion AG
    NeuroVive Pharmaceutical AB
    SCC Arbitration Institute

    1 year, 3 months and 2 days later · 457 days

  3. 25 May 2016Arbitration

    25 May 2016Arbitration

    Partial Arbitral Award (PAA), 25 May 2016

    SCC Arbitration Institute

    Decision summary
    The tribunal dismissed CicloMulsion's claims for royalty payment and declarations concerning NeuroVive's reporting obligations, limited the declaration of payment liability to periods from first launch, reserved payment liability for countries without patent protection for the final award, and ruled on CicloMulsion's claim that the licence agreement could not be terminated by NeuroVive.

    Supporting details

    2 participants
    CicloMulsion AG
    NeuroVive Pharmaceutical AB
    SCC Arbitration Institute

    1 month and 26 days later · 57 days

  4. 21 July 2016Arbitration

    21 July 2016Arbitration

    Tribunal decision, 21 July 2016

    SCC Arbitration Institute

    Decision summary
    The tribunal acknowledged that it had erred by changing its assessment contrary to PO 10 and indicated that it was willing to remedy the error by reopening written submissions if CicloMulsion brought set-aside proceedings.

    Supporting details

    2 participants
    CicloMulsion AG
    NeuroVive Pharmaceutical AB
    SCC Arbitration Institute

    1 year, 5 months and 22 days later · 540 days

  5. 12 January 2018Sweden

    12 January 2018Sweden

    Judgment of the Scania and Blekinge Court of Appeal in the case concerning CicloMulsion AG and NeuroVive Pharmaceutical AB dated 12 January 2018

    Scania and Blekinge Court of Appeal

    Decision summary
    The Court of Appeal set aside the arbitral award in respect of points 1, 2(a), and 3–5, dismissed CicloMulsion's request for a stay and remittal under section 35 of the Swedish Arbitration Act, and rejected NeuroVive's challenge concerning point 2(a) while dismissing its challenge concerning point 2(b) as inadmissible.

    Supporting details

    7 authorities · 5 participants
    CicloMulsion AG
    NeuroVive Pharmaceutical AB
    Scania and Blekinge Court of Appeal

    Authorities cited

    7
    • Swedish Arbitration Act (1999:116) (LSF) (Swedish Arbitration Act (1999:116))
      statute
    • Government Bill 1998/99:35
      academic
    • Lindskog, Arbitration: A Commentary, 1 May 2016, Zeteo
      academic
    • Heuman, Arbitration Law, 1999
      academic
    • Elofsson in Swedish Law Journal 2010, p. 831
      academic
    • NJA 1965 s. 384
      case-law
    • NJA 2009 s. 128
      case-law
  6. Date not availableArbitration

    Date not availableArbitration

    Procedural Order No. 11 (PO 11)

    SCC Arbitration Institute

    Decision summary
    Before a telephone conference, the tribunal indicated that it wished to discuss the parties' right to be heard concerning NeuroVive's 24 July 2014 submission, among other matters.

    Supporting details

    2 participants
    CicloMulsion AG
    NeuroVive Pharmaceutical AB
    SCC Arbitration Institute
  7. Date not availableArbitration

    Date not availableArbitration

    Procedural Order No. 12 (PO 12)

    SCC Arbitration Institute

    Decision summary
    The tribunal gave CicloMulsion an opportunity to comment on specified questions and on NeuroVive's 24 July 2014 submission.

    Supporting details

    2 participants
    CicloMulsion AG
    NeuroVive Pharmaceutical AB
    SCC Arbitration Institute

Matter record

Report a correction

CicloMulsion AG v NeuroVive Pharmaceutical AB (Scania and Blekinge Court of Appeal, 12 January 2018) · Matter