NIPC Law

  Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Peter Jackson, Arnold and Stuart Smith) Generics (UK) Ltd and others v AstraZeneca AB    [2025] EWCA Civ 903 (16 July 2025) This was an appeal by AstraZeneca AB from the judgment of Dr Michael Tappin KC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court in    Generics (UK) Ltd v AstraZeneca AB [2025] EWHC 1012 (Pat) (28 April 2025).  In that case, Generics (UK) Limited and several other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers had claimed a declaration that the following supplementary protection certificates were invalid and an order for their revocation: SPC/GB13/021  for dapagliflozin and pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof;   and SPC/GB14/050  for a combination of dapagliflozin or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof and metformin or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof.  Those SPCs derived from  European patent (UK) 1 506 211 B1 .  The claimants contended that the ...

  Jane Lambert Court of Appea l (Lords Justices Coulson, Arnold and Warby) AstraZeneca AB and another v Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Europe Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 480 (16 April 2025) This was an appeal against Michael Tappin KC's refusal in  AstraZeneca AB and another v Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Europe Ltd (Re Interim Injunction Application) [2025] EWHC 748 (Pat) (28 March 2025)   to grant AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca UK Ltd. an interim injunction to restrain Gelnmark Pharmaceuticals Europe Ltd. from selling a product containing dapagliflozin pending a hearing on the form of order following a trial to determine the validity of the first claimant's supplemental protection certificates  for dapagliflozin and a combination of dapagliflozin and metformin.  The appeal was heard by Lords Justices Coulson, Arnold and Warby on 9 April 2025.  At the end of the hearing, the Lords Justices announced that they would allow AstraZeneca's appeal.  Lord Justice Arno...

Jane Lambert Whenever a court grants an interim injunction, or a respondent offers an undertaking, to do or refrain from doing something that might infringe a right claimed by the applicant, the applicant has to offer the respondent and in the most cases the court "a cross undertaking as to damages." Wording that is recommended for freezing injunctions but which could be adapted for other orders mutatis mutandis  runs as follows: "If the court later finds that this order has caused loss to the Respondent, and decides that the Respondent should be compensated for that loss, the Applicant will comply with any order the court may make." The need for such a cross-undertaking was considered by the House of Lords in the landmark case of American Cyanamid Co (No 1) v Ethicon Ltd [1977] FSR 593, [1975] AC 396, [1975] 1 All ER 504, [1975] 2 WLR 316, [1975] UKHL 1. An interim injunction is intended to be a temporary remedy to prevent a  fait accompli w...