AstraZeneca AB & Anor v Generics (UK) Limited & Ors

For an interim injunction pending a further appeal, the court must first ask whether the proposed appeal has a real prospect of success. If it does, the court assesses relevant post-judgment circumstances, including the time before the appeal, hardship and the need to preserve the appellate court’s ability to do justice. Relief is not confined to cases where refusal would make the appeal nugatory. If the threshold is not met, the usual inquiry into damages and the overall risk of injustice need not be undertaken. Nevertheless, a short holding injunction may be granted where it is just and convenient to preserve the status quo and enable the higher court to decide what order to make.

AstraZeneca sought an interim injunction preventing generic manufacturers from marketing dapagliflozin pending an intended application to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal, or any resulting appeal. The application followed the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of AstraZeneca’s substantive appeal in [2025] EWCA Civ 903, concerning the revocation of supplementary protection certificates after the Patent was held invalid in [2025] EWHC 1012 (Pat). The issue was whether AstraZeneca had a real prospect of success and, if not, whether a short injunction should nevertheless preserve the existing market position while the Supreme Court considered the matter.

Disposition. The application for an injunction pending a Supreme Court appeal, or pending an application for permission to appeal, was refused because neither proposed step had a real prospect of success. Nevertheless, the court granted a temporary injunction until 4pm on 30 July 2025.

1. The Court of Appeal retained equitable jurisdiction to grant interim relief where it was just and convenient, including pending an intended appeal to the Supreme Court or an application for permission or interim relief there.
2. The applicable principles mirrored those governing an injunction pending an appeal from the High Court. Applying Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Johnson & Johnson Ltd [1976] RPC 671 and Novartis AG v Hospira UK Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 583, the court had to consider prospects, the relevant post-judgment circumstances, the period before the appeal and the balance of hardship. The jurisdiction was not confined to cases where refusal would render an appeal nugatory.
3. There was no arguable point of law capable of enabling AstraZeneca to succeed. Even the proposed “ab initio implausibility” standard would not assist it, and arbitrary selection independently supported invalidity. The absence of a real prospect equated, for the American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 approach, to there being no serious issue to be tried. It was therefore unnecessary to decide adequacy of damages or the overall risk of injustice.
4. The court nevertheless had to allow for the possibility that its assessment was mistaken. A 14-day injunction was just and convenient to preserve the status quo and enable the Supreme Court, which alone could determine expedition and any interim relief, to make the appropriate order. The court did not need to resolve contested damages issues where the evidence was not directed to that short period and lacked sufficient granularity.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In the present judgment, [2025] EWCA Civ 924, the application for relief pending a possible Supreme Court appeal or permission application was refused, subject to a temporary injunction preserving the status quo until 30 July 2025.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The substantive appeal was dismissed and permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused in [2025] EWCA Civ 903.
3. High Court, Patents Court: The supplementary protection certificates were revoked after the Patent was held invalid in [2025] EWHC 1012 (Pat).