James Abrahams KC represented Glenmark in proceedings brought by AstraZeneca to restrain its launch of a generic dapagliflozin, a medicine for treatment of type 2 diabetes and other conditions. Glenmark had already brought a claim for revocation of AstraZeneca’s patent and SPC protecting dapagliflozin, which was tried in March 2025, with judgment reserved. Glenmark gave notice that it wished to launch before that judgment was handed down; AstraZeneca responded by applying for an interim injunction until the form of order hearing following the judgment. At first instance ([2025] EWHC 748 (Pat)), Michael Tappin KC (sitting as a deputy judge) found that damages would be an adequate remedy for AstraZeneca and therefore refused to grant an interim injunction. On appeal ([2025] EWCA Civ 480), the Court of Appeal held that damages would not be an adequate remedy for either party and granted an interim injunction to preserve the status quo until the form of order hearing in the revocation proceedings.
The case is interesting for the speed of the proceedings. AstraZeneca issued its application for an interim injunction on 6 March; it was heard on 27 March and judgment delivered on 28 March. AstraZeneca immediately appealed; permission to appeal was granted at an oral hearing on 31 March; the appeal was heard on 9 April and the injunction granted at the end of the hearing (just 34 days after the application was issued).
The case is also interesting for the importance given by the Court of Appeal to the maintenance of the status quo in circumstances where the generic pharmaceutical company had not cleared the way before launching, and had sought to “jump the gun” (in the Court’s words) by launching prior to the conclusion of the revocation proceedings.