Arnold J allowed the application in part. In his opinion:
- The document in question set out the statistical method which was referred to by a number of disclosed documents. Danisco was not just speculatively fishing when seeking it, but it still had to be asked whether it was actually relevant to the dispute which was the subject of the litigation.
- The document was actually necessary in order to understand the figures in another document that had already been disclosed -- though ultimately it might not possess any evidential weight.
- Disclosure of that document would not place any substantial burden on Novozymes, nor was it unfair to ask Novozymes to disclose it with the EPO hearing being just two weeks away. In any event, Novozymes could have disclosed the document earlier and, regarding the EPO hearing, the EPO would not allow Novozymes to be prejudiced by this disclosure.
- As to the redacted parts of the May 2009 report, inspection would be ordered. The report was sufficiently relevant to be able to support Danisco's case or undermine Novozymes'. If this wasn't a patent trial, disclosure would have been ordered, the problem here only being that Danisco's application for inspection was made outside the four-year window for disclosure in patent cases. Again, no burden would be placed on Novozymes in complying with the inspection request.
- Disclosure of the redacted parts of the further monthly reports would not be ordered: they post-dated the issues to which Danisco claimed they were relevant by one-and-a-half to two years.