Astrazeneca AB & Anor v Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Europe Ltd (Re Interim Injunction Application) [2025] EWHC 748 (Pat) (28 March 2025)

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2025] EWHC 748 (Pat)
Parties: Claimant: AstraZeneca AB; Claimant: AstraZeneca UK Limited; Defendant: Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Europe Limited
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 28 March 2025
Procedural Posture: Interim Injunction Application / Post Trial, Pre Judgment on Validity, Application for Interim Relief Pending Form of Order Hearing
Outcome: Application for interim injunction refused.
Legal Topics: Interim Injunctions, Supplementary Protection Certificates (spc), Pharmaceutical Patents, Adequacy of Damages, Balance of Convenience

Intellectual Property Patents Interim Injunctions Supplementary Protection Certificates (spc) Pharmaceutical Patents Adequacy of Damages Balance of Convenience

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

AstraZeneca AB

Claimant

AstraZeneca UK Limited

Claimant

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Europe Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Post Trial, Pre Judgment on Validity, Application for Interim Relief Pending Form of Order Hearing

Legal Issues

1 Whether an interim injunction should be granted to restrain Glenmark from launching a generic dapagliflozin product in the UK pending the form of order hearing after the validity trial of the SPC.

Ratio Decidendi

Damages would be an adequate remedy for AZ if the injunction were refused, provided Glenmark secures payment into a separate account for each pack sold. In contrast, damages on the cross-undertaking would not be an adequate remedy for Glenmark or the NHS due to the complexity and uncertainty in establishing the counterfactual. The balance of risk of injustice lies against granting the injunction. Therefore, the application for an interim injunction is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction refused.

Orders

AZ's application for an interim injunction pending the form of order hearing is refused.
Glenmark to provide an undertaking to pay a sum per pack sold into a separate bank account pending the form of order hearing.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.