Generics (UK) Limited v Astrazeneca AB

Costs are determined by identifying the overall winner, isolating any distinct issue on which that party lost, and deciding whether justice requires a further costs adjustment. The court should avoid microscopic analysis and select an appropriate level of granularity. A party that reasonably raises an unsuccessful issue may lose its own costs of that issue, but will not ordinarily be ordered to pay the opponent’s costs of it. Interim payments on account should represent a reasonable estimate of likely recovery, allowing a margin for error. The court must stand back and assess whether the resulting order is just in all the circumstances.

The judgment determined costs following the court’s earlier finding that the patent and supplementary protection certificates were invalid. The Court of Appeal dismissed AstraZeneca’s appeal, and the Supreme Court refused permission to appeal. The parties agreed that costs should be determined on paper.

The claimants were the successful parties. AstraZeneca sought deductions for classical obviousness, extended disclosure, trial-listing applications and pleading amendments. The court also determined interim payments on account and an application under CPR 31.22.

1. Costs principles. The claimants were the overall winners. Applying CPR 44.2, the court considered whether they had lost on any suitably circumscribed issue and whether justice required them to pay AstraZeneca’s costs of that issue.
2. The appropriate approach was to ask who had won, whether the winning party had lost on a suitably defined issue, and whether it was just to make a further costs order. The court should avoid excessive granularity, while recognising that some issues may properly be treated as distinct.
3. The classical obviousness case was a distinct unsuccessful issue. It did not operate as a squeeze on AstraZeneca, and the claimants were not entitled to recover the additional costs caused by advancing it. The case was nevertheless reasonable to run, so AstraZeneca was not awarded its costs of that issue. A 10% deduction was appropriate.
4. The extended disclosure exercise concerned an issue on which the claimants succeeded. The claimants were reasonable to seek disclosure because AstraZeneca maintained its comparative-properties case until shortly before trial. No deduction was made.
5. Costs of trial-listing applications were excluded or deducted in accordance with earlier orders. Teva and Glenmark were deprived of the additional costs caused by their abandoned allegations under Articles 3(a), (c) and (d), but AstraZeneca did not recover its costs because those allegations were reasonably advanced.
6. After standing back, the court ordered deductions of 10% from each claimant’s costs, together with additional deductions of 2% from Viatris, 0.8% from Teva and 1.2% from Glenmark.
7. Under CPR 44.2(8), a reasonable payment on account is an estimate of likely recovery subject to an appropriate margin for error. Taking account of possible duplication and the sums involved, 65% of the claimants’ costs after deductions was appropriate. AstraZeneca was ordered to pay specified sums within 28 days, with interest at the judgment rate from 24 June 2025.
8. An order under CPR 31.22 was made concerning confidential documents in the trial bundles which had played no part in the trial.

• High Court (Patents Court): The court’s earlier validity judgment, [2025] EWHC 1012 (Pat), found the patent and SPCs invalid.
• Court of Appeal: AstraZeneca’s appeal was dismissed: [2025] EWCA Civ 903.
• Supreme Court: AstraZeneca’s application for permission to appeal was refused.
• High Court (Patents Court): The present judgment determined consequential costs issues.