In a significant pharmaceutical patent ruling, the UK Court of Appeal has granted AstraZeneca an interim injunction preventing Glenmark Pharmaceuticals from launching its generic version of the diabetes medication dapagliflozin. The decision, issued by Judge Richard Arnold shortly before Easter, reverses an earlier High Court ruling and blocks Glenmark's product from entering the UK market until patent validity proceedings conclude.
Patent Protection at the Center of Dispute
The legal battle centers on AstraZeneca's supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) for dapagliflozin, which extend market exclusivity until May 2028 despite the underlying European patent (EP 1 506 211) having expired in May 2023. Two specific SPCs are under contention: GB13/021 for dapagliflozin alone and GB14/050 for a combination of dapagliflozin and metformin.
Dapagliflozin, marketed by AstraZeneca under the brand name Forxiga, is an SGLT2 inhibitor that helps lower blood sugar levels in patients with type 2 diabetes. The medication has demonstrated additional benefits in reducing heart attack risk, supporting patients with heart failure, and slowing kidney disease progression.
In October 2023, generic manufacturer Viatris initiated revocation proceedings against AstraZeneca's SPCs, claiming patent invalidity. Teva and Glenmark subsequently brought similar challenges. Despite the ongoing litigation, Glenmark informed AstraZeneca in February 2025 of its intention to launch its generic dapagliflozin product on March 17, prompting AstraZeneca to seek an interim injunction.
Competing Court Decisions
Deputy High Court Judge Michael Tappin initially rejected AstraZeneca's application for a preliminary injunction in late March (case ID: HP-2025-000006), ruling that monetary damages would adequately compensate the company if the patent was ultimately found valid.
However, AstraZeneca successfully appealed this decision. The Court of Appeal, under Judge Richard Arnold, determined that contrary to the lower court's finding, damages would not adequately compensate either party, and granted the injunction until the conclusion of the form of order hearing in the revocation proceedings (case ID: CA-2025-000746).
Market Implications
The stakes in this case are particularly high given dapagliflozin's dominant market position. The drug currently commands over 60% of the SGLT2 inhibitor market in the UK. Furthermore, heart and kidney disorders remain significantly underdiagnosed, with approximately 3.7 million people in the UK currently eligible for, but not taking, SGLT2 inhibitors—representing substantial untapped market potential.
AstraZeneca's legal team argued that allowing Glenmark's generic to enter the market would cause irreversible harm through price erosion. They emphasized that the situation was further complicated by the potential for additional competitors to enter the market, a factor they claimed was inadequately considered in the initial ruling.
"The introduction of a generic competitor typically leads to drastic price reductions and could severely impact AstraZeneca's profitability," argued Geoffrey Pritchard KC, representing AstraZeneca during the proceedings.
Legal Representation
AstraZeneca is represented by a team from Freshfields' UK patent practice, with lead partners Christopher Stothers and Laura Whiting working alongside associates Nicholas Fischer, Nathan Nadeson, Aidan Southall, and Jeremy Manger. Geoffrey Pritchard KC and Thomas Lunt of Three New Square acted as barristers for the pharmaceutical company, collaborating with AstraZeneca's in-house team led by Legal Director Dom Hornblow and litigation counsel Marcus Heifetz.
Glenmark has relied on a team from Powell Gilbert, with London-based partners Tom Oliver and Penny Gilbert taking the lead, working in cooperation with barrister James Abrahams KC of 8 New Square.
Broader Implications
This case highlights the complex interplay between patent protection and market competition in the pharmaceutical industry. The Court of Appeal's decision to grant the injunction suggests a recognition of the potential market disruption that could occur if generic products enter before patent validity is fully determined.
The validity trial for AstraZeneca's SPCs is scheduled for mid-March 2025, having been pushed back from the January date requested by all parties. The outcome of these proceedings will determine whether Glenmark and other generic manufacturers can bring their dapagliflozin products to market before the SPCs expire in 2028.
The ruling may also set an important precedent for future cases involving generic drug introductions and pharmaceutical patent litigation strategies in the UK, particularly regarding the standards for granting interim injunctions in cases where market dynamics and patent rights intersect.
