Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Ltd v Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 1009 (Pat) (15 April 2019)

Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Ltd v Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 1009 (Pat) (15 April 2019)

There is no jurisdiction to order fortification of a cross-undertaking in damages after the discharge of the interim injunction, as fortification is only available as a condition for the grant or continuation of the injunction, not retrospectively. Even if jurisdiction existed, there is no material risk of Napp being unable to meet its obligations, and the application would be dismissed on the facts.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1009 (Pat)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited; First Defendant: Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Limited; Purported Additional Defendant/applicant: Sandoz Limited; Purported Additional Defendant/applicant: Hexal AG; Purported Additional Defendant/applicant: Salutas Pharma GmbH; Purported Additional Defendant/applicant: Sandoz AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Application in Ongoing Patent Litigation / Post Interim Injunction, Application for Fortification of Cross Undertaking in Damages
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Patents, Interim Injunctions, Cross Undertaking in Damages, Fortification of Undertakings, Jurisdiction, Asset Dissipation
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patents Interim Injunctions Cross Undertaking in Damages Fortification of Undertakings Jurisdiction Asset Dissipation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited

Claimant/respondent

Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Limited

First Defendant

Sandoz Limited

Purported Additional Defendant/applicant

Hexal AG

Purported Additional Defendant/applicant

Salutas Pharma GmbH

Purported Additional Defendant/applicant

Sandoz AG

Purported Additional Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Application in Ongoing Patent Litigation / Post Interim Injunction, Application for Fortification of Cross Undertaking in Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to order fortification of a cross-undertaking in damages after discharge of an interim injunction
  2. 2 Whether, if jurisdiction exists, fortification should be ordered on the facts

Ratio Decidendi

There is no jurisdiction to order fortification of a cross-undertaking in damages after the discharge of the interim injunction, as fortification is only available as a condition for the grant or continuation of the injunction, not retrospectively. Even if jurisdiction existed, there is no material risk of Napp being unable to meet its obligations, and the application would be dismissed on the facts.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for fortification of cross-undertaking in damages refused