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...

  Ja ne Lambert irst  Chancery Division (Mr Justice Mellor)  A U Vodka Ltd v NE10 Vodka Ltd and another [2022] EWHC 2371 (Ch) (21 Sept 2022) The claimant in these proceedings distilled and distributed the vodka on the left.  The first defendant the vodka on the right.  The claimant applied for an interim injunction to retrain the first defendant and its sole director and shareholder (the second defendant) from marketing and selling the vodka on the right until trial or further order.   The defendants applied to strike out the claim against the second defendant and sought an expedited trial.   The application and cross-applications came on before Mr Justice Mellor as applications by order on 16 Aug 2022.  At the end of the hearing, his lordship refused the application for an injunction and the cross-application for a strikeout but granted a speedy trial.   He set out his reasons in  AU Vodka Ltd v NE10 Vodka Ltd and anothe...

Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Floyd, Males and Arnold) Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd and another v Generics UK Ltd (t/a Mylan) and another [2020] EWCA Civ 793 (24 June 2020 ) This was an appeal by the claimants, Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd ("Neurim") and its exclusive licensee Flynn Pharma Ltd ("Flynn"), against Mr Justice Marcus Smith's refusal in Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd and another v Generics UK Ltd (t/a Mylan) and another [2020] EWHC 1362 (Pat) (3 June 2020) to restrain the defendants, Generics UK Ltd and Mylan Healthcare Ltd ("Mylan"),  from launching a generic competitor to the claimants' drug Circadin  until after the trial of the claimants' action for infringement of Neurim's European patent (UK) 1,441,702 . I discussed Mr Justice Marcus Smith's judgment in Patents - Neurim Pharmaceuticals v Mylan   on   4 June 2020. The claimant appealed and Lords Justices Floyd, Males an...

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...

In  Warner -Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Plc EHF and Others   [2015] EWHC 72 (Pat) (21 Jan 2015) Warner-Lambert LLC applied to Mr Justice Arnold for an interim injunction in the following terms: "1, The Defendants:  (a) shall make it a condition of any oral or written agreement entered into with a pharmacy for the supply of Lecaent that the pharmacy shall use reasonable endeavours not to supply or dispense Lecaent to patients who have been prescribed pregabalin for the treatment of pain, by making reasonable enquiries of a person presenting a prescription for 'pregabalin' as to whether the prescription is for pain and/or making reasonable checks of pharmacy records for the same; and  (b) shall make it a condition of any oral or written agreement entered into with an intermediary (such as a distributor) for the supply of Lecaent that, in any onward supply of Lecaent by the intermediary, such intermediary must in turn make it a condition ...