Hogan Lovells logo
  • Our people
  • What we do
    Sectors Practices Legal Tech
    • Aerospace and Defense
    • Automotive and Mobility
    • Consumer
    • Education
    • Energy
    • Financial Institutions
    • Insurance
    • Life Sciences and Health Care
    • Manufacturing and Industrials
    • Private Capital
    • Real Estate
    • Sports, Media and Entertainment
    • Technology
    • Transportation and Logistics
    • Corporate & Finance
    • Disputes
    • Intellectual Property
    • Regulatory
  • Case studies
  • Our thinking
    • All Our thinking
    • Comparative guides
    • Digital Client Solutions
    • Events and webinars
    • Podcasts
    News image_2

    Reflecting on President Trump’s first 100 days in office

  • ESG
  • Careers
Search Search
close
Search Search Search
lang-sel-icon English
  • Deutsch
  • English
  • Español
  • Français
  • 日本語
  • 中文
False
people-new
Mobile area
  • About us
    • Overview
    • Our history
    • Global management team
  • Where we are
    • Our locations
    • Law Firm Network
  • Media center
    • Media contacts
    • Press releases
    • Awards & rankings
  • Responsible Business
  • HL Inclusion
  • Alumni
LinkedIn
Youtube
twitter
Wechat
News

UK Court of Appeal grants AstraZeneca an interim injunction against Glenmark’s generic dapagliflozin for type II diabetes

10 April 2025
lab samples
lab samples
wechat x linkedin
hogan-lovells-logo
Share by email
Enter email
Enter Subject
Cancel
Send
News
UK Court of Appeal grants AstraZeneca an interim injunction against Glenmark’s generic dapagliflozin for type II diabetes
Chapter
  • Chapter

  • Chapter 1

    PI refused by the lower court – damages an adequate remedy for AZ
  • Chapter 2

    Permission to appeal granted
  • Chapter 3

    PI awarded - the lower court overturned

In a reversal of fortune, yesterday (9 April) the UK Court of Appeal awarded AstraZeneca (AZ) an interim injunction keeping Glenmark’s dapagliflozin (dapa) off the UK market until the form of order hearing in the parallel validity action. Dapa is a generic of AZ’s blockbuster Forxiga® for the treatment of type II diabetes. The interim injunction could remain in place until June, or for a longer (or shorter) period of time depending on the timing of the validity action.

Chapter 1

1

PI refused by the lower court – damages an adequate remedy for AZ

expanded collapse

The same interim injunction was refused on 28 March by Michael Tappin KC sitting as a deputy judge (who also heard the trial on the validity of the SPCs and underlying patent on 10-20 March). 

The injunction sought was until the form of order hearing i.e. the hearing to determine the order after judgment on the validity of the SPCs and patent. 

The basis for the Judge’s refusal was that AZ’s damages (if the injunction was wrongly refused) could be calculated with reasonable accuracy. By contrast, assessing Glenmark’s damages (and the NHS’ damages) under the cross-undertaking (if the injunction was wrongly granted) would be significantly more difficult (whether other generics entered the market or not) due to the likelihood of Glenmark losing first mover advantage and the unknown level of competition from other generics. 

The NHS intervened. It argued that it would be in a weaker position than Glenmark when enforcing its claim on a cross-undertaking due to the lack of first-hand knowledge and access to relevant facts, a problem that would be exacerbated yet further if AZ settled with Glenmark. 

As to the balance of convenience, the Judge found that (on the issue of clearing the way) Glenmark had asked for (but failed to get) a January 2025 trial back in January 2024. In the Judge's view, the fact that Glenmark was ready to launch shortly before the Court had managed to produce a judgment on the validity trial was not a significant factor. 

The Judge found Glenmark should undertake to pay security into a separate bank account in respect of AZ’s potential future damage.

Chapter 2

2

Permission to appeal granted

expanded collapse

On 31 March, Lord Justice Arnold granted AZ permission to appeal on three grounds. 

The first ground was in two parts and was (paraphrasing): a failure to take into account the relevant uncertainty when assessing whether damages would be an adequate remedy for AZ; and inappropriate application of American Cyanamid including on adequacy of damages and the balance of convenience. 

The second ground concerned a failure to properly take account of AZ’s loss after the form of order hearing (what would happen if the market became fully genericized by the time of that hearing?). 

The third ground was that the Judge had erred in his assessment of the adequacy of damages to Glenmark. 

Holding the ring, the Judge granted AZ an injunction pending the decision of the Court of Appeal. Glenmark was allowed to supply to its wholesalers the packs of dapa it already had ready for distribution, but not allowed to release those packs for onward sale in the UK. 

Chapter 3

3

PI awarded - the lower court overturned

expanded collapse

The appeal was heard on an expedited basis before Lord Justice Arnold, Lord Justice Coulson and Lord Justice Warby on 9 April.

In addition to the three grounds referred to above, their Lord Justices heard submissions on a new fourth ground of appeal, in support of which AZ was permitted (by agreement) to adduce fresh evidence not available to the lower court. This new evidence pertained to developments in the position of Teva and another generic (referred to in court as Generic X), the consequence of which (as argued by AZ) was (inter alia) that Glenmark no longer benefitted from a first mover advantage. 

Glenmark submitted that nothing about AZ’s arguments moved the needle on the Judge’s price strategy finding (which was that AZ would not reduce its list or actual price upon generic entry). Glenmark argued this finding was central to why damages would be an adequate remedy for AZ (whether multiple generics entered the market or not) and was, in effect, a complete answer to AZ’s appeal. 

After a short break, their Lord Justices delivered their decision: Glenmark’s dapa product is injuncted in the UK, with immediate effect, until the form of order hearing in the validity action. 

The parties were ordered to agree the form of order on the injunction overnight (to ensure maintenance of the status quo). 

The duration of the injunction is uncertain, tied as it is to the timing of the form of order hearing in the validity action. At the time of going to press, judgment in the validity action is still pending. However, at both hearings, the parties proceeded on the basis a form of order hearing would take place within 1-3 months of the first instance trial i.e. by no later than mid-June. Michael Tappin KC did not contradict this assumption in his PI judgment. 

Recordings of the appeal can be accessed here and here. 

Authored by Helen Poulson.

Concluding remarks

Questions remain: the Court of Appeal’s reasons for reversing the first instance decision and awarding the injunction are pending. No doubt the judgment on AstraZeneca’s appeal will be eagerly awaited by many in the industry.

Contacts

bio-image

Helen Poulson

Senior Associate

location London

email Email me

bio-image

Daniel Brook

Partner

location London

email Email me

bio-image

Stephen Bennett

Partner

location London

email Email me

bio-image

Stella Wong

Partner

location London

email Email me

View more

Related topics

  • Patents
  • Intellectual Property
Load more

Related countries

  • United Kingdom
Load more

Related keywords

  • Dapagliflozin
  • UK Court of Appeal
  • AstraZeneca
  • generics
  • interim injunction
  • damages
  • NHS
  • evidence
  • pharmaceuticals
  • life sciences
Load more

Articles you may be interested in

image_1
News

Court of Appeal hands down reasons for awarding AZ an interim injunction in the UK against Glenmark’s generic dapagliflozin for type II diabetes

24 April 2025

image_1
Insights and Analysis

Hogan Lovells Germany: Impulses for the EU Digital Transformation

11 April 2025

image_1
News

CJEU expands possibilities for cross-border patent infringement injunctions

26 February 2025

image_1
News

Doing Business in the United States 2025

17 January 2025

image_1
Insights and Analysis

At the crossroads of IP and Russia sanctions: what IP Rights holders need to know

04 December 2024

image_1
News

CJEU: Cross-border relief on the basis of Third State patents?

20 September 2024

image_1
News

What is quantum computing and what’s all the fuss about it?

06 September 2024

image_1
News

Sandoz v Bayer: Ethical issues and determining obviousness for patents in the UK

25 June 2024

image_1
News

Highlights from the DOJ’s recent competition & AI workshop

20 June 2024

left_arrow
right_arrow

Search

arrow
arrow
"" ""
Digital Client Solutions
Empowering you to lead change through our digital solutions.
Learn more

Register now to receive personalized content and more!

 

Register
close
See benefits
Register
Hogan Lovells logo
Contact us
Quick Links
  • About us
  • Careers
  • Case studies
  • Contact us
  • HL Inclusion
  • Our people
  • Our thinking
  • Responsible Business
  • Cookies
  • Disclaimer
  • Fraudulent and Scam Emails
  • Legal notices
  • Modern Slavery Statement
  • Our thinking terms of use
  • Privacy
  • RSS
Connect with us
LinkedIn
Youtube
Twitter
Wechat
Stay in the know

© 2025 Hogan Lovells. All rights reserved. "Hogan Lovells" or the “firm” refers to the international legal practice that comprises Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP and their affiliated businesses, each of which is a separate legal entity. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Subscribe to Our thinking
Connect with us
LinkedIn
Youtube
Twitter
Wechat