CA-2025-001040-A - [2025] EWCA Civ 924

On 16 July 2025 this Court (Peter Jackson LJ, Stuart-Smith LJ and myself) handed down judgments ([2025] EWCA Civ 903) dismissing an appeal by the Defendant (“AstraZeneca”) against an order made by Dr Michael Tappin KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge revoking UK Supplementary Protection Certificates Nos. SPC/GB13/021 and SPC/GB14/050 (“the SPCs”) on the ground that the patent upon which they were based, European Patent (UK) No. 1 506 211 (“the Patent”), was invalid for the reasons given in his judgment dated 28 April 2025 ([2025] EWHC 1012 (Pat)). The claims of the Patent relate to a compound called dapagliflozin, marketed by AstraZeneca under the trade mark Forxiga, which is used to treat diabetes and other conditions. The Court refused AstraZeneca permission to appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that there was no arguable point of law which would enable AstraZeneca to succeed on an appeal.

Before knowing those decisions, AstraZeneca (and its subsidiary AstraZeneca UK Ltd, which is a party to the infringement proceedings referred to below, but whose involvement I shall not mention again) had made a precautionary application for an interim injunction to restrain the Claimants (“Viatris”, “Teva” and “Glenmark”) and two other respondents (“Sandoz” and “Bestway”) from marketing generic dapagliflozin until the determination by the Supreme Court either of an appeal, or an application for permission to appeal, by AstraZeneca. In the light of the Court’s decisions, AstraZeneca concentrated its application on the second of those alternatives. Having heard argument on that application, the present constitution of the Court announced that the application would be refused, but nevertheless granted an interim injunction until 4pm on 30 July 2025, for reasons which were briefly outlined orally, but to be explained more fully in writing later. This judgment sets out my reasons for reaching that conclusion. It also explains why, in reaching that conclusion, we declined to hear full oral argument on adequacy of damages. Although the reasons can be stated reasonably succinctly, in the interests of transparency I shall explain the procedural background in a little detail.