NIPC Law

  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   Patents Court (Mr Justice Macaroli) Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Ltd and others v Warner Lambert LLC and another [2021] EWHC 2182 (Ch) (30 July 2021) Each of the 35 claimants in these proceedings had been awarded an inquiry as to damages either for losses sustained as a result of an interim injunction that the defendants had agreed to pay or for losses resulting from threats of litigation that the court had held to be groundless.  Most of the claimants were pharmaceutical companies that supplied pregabalin  which they were allowed to distribute for the treatment of epilepsy and anxiety but not neuropathic pain.  The remaining claimants were the governments of the United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the National Health Service that wished to treat patients for neuropathic pain with generic products. The Dispute Warner Lambert Company LLC was the proprietor of  EP0641330 B1  for isobutylgaba, of which pregabalin is a deriv...

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...