AstraZeneca v Glenmark, Teva, Viatris & Ors [2025] EWHC 1339 (Pat)
AstraZeneca, the patentee & SPC holder, sought interim relief to prevent generic dapagliflozin being put on the market in the UK. A number of pharmaceutical companies, including Glenmark, Teva and Viatris, were sought to be enjoined.
Dapagliflozin is a sodium glucose transport inhibitor used to treat Type II diabetes. AstraZeneca’s patent and SPCs in respect of dapagliflozin had been held invalid (by decision of Mr Michael Tappin KC, siting as a Deputy Judge – [2025] EWHC 1012 (Pat)). However, AstraZeneca had obtained permission to appeal that decision from the Court of Appeal, and sought injunctive relief pending resolution of the validity appeal.
HHJ Hacon, sitting as a Judge of the Patents Court, granted the interim injunction. He found that either side was likely to suffer irreparable harm on the alternative hypotheses of an injunction being granted or not. He therefore decided to maintain the status quo, taking into account that the validity appeal had been expedited to be heard within 4 weeks.
The case is notable for the discussion of the ‘price spiral’ often relied upon by patentees in pharmaceutical cases – in particular the actual mechanisms by which drug prices are controlled in the UK, including the Department of Health & Social Care’s ‘voluntary scheme for prices and growth’ or ‘VPAG’ scheme. The Court found that the VPAG scheme would not prevent AstraZeneca from either reducing its prices to compete with the generics or in reinstating it prices in the event that it succeeded on its validity appeal. Nevertheless, the Court found that harm would be caused to AstraZeneca in the form of damage to its relationships with wholesalers and/or retail pharmacists.
Anna Edwards-Stuart KC appeared for Teva; Brian Nicholson KC appeared for Viatris; and Kathryn Pickard KC appeared for Glenmark.