Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Ltd v Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Ltd & Ors

Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Ltd v Dr Reddy's Laboratories (UK) Ltd & Ors

There is no jurisdiction to order fortification of a cross-undertaking in damages after the discharge of the interim injunction, as the undertaking is the price for the injunction and cannot be retrospectively fortified. Even if there were jurisdiction, the facts do not justify granting fortification as there is no material risk to Napp’s ability to pay damages.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited; First Defendant/applicant: 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 Damages Inquiry (patent Litigation) / Ruling on Application to Fortify Cross Undertaking in Damages After Discharge of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Patents, Interim Injunctions, Cross Undertaking in Damages, Fortification of Undertakings, Jurisdiction
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Patents Interim Injunctions Cross Undertaking in Damages Fortification of Undertakings Jurisdiction

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 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Limited

Claimant/respondent

Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (UK) Limited

First Defendant/applicant

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 Damages Inquiry (patent Litigation) / Ruling on Application to Fortify Cross Undertaking in Damages After Discharge of Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

There is no jurisdiction to order fortification of a cross-undertaking in damages after the discharge of the interim injunction, as the undertaking is the price for the injunction and cannot be retrospectively fortified. Even if there were jurisdiction, the facts do not justify granting fortification as there is no material risk to Napp’s ability to pay damages.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to fortify cross-undertaking in damages is dismissed.