AstraZeneca AB & Anor v Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Europe Limited & Ors

Where an interim injunction is granted to preserve the position pending trial, success at the interim stage is provisional and costs may properly be reserved. Once the substantive trial has concluded, the court will generally be able to identify the successful and unsuccessful parties and apply that conclusion to the reserved interim costs, subject to all the circumstances. The court may depart from that approach where conduct, partial success or other special factors justify doing so. Unreasonable conduct which makes an urgent hearing necessary may justify indemnity costs. The court should ordinarily assess the parties as sides rather than divide costs issue by issue.

The proceedings concerned AstraZeneca’s patent for dapagliflozin. Several generic pharmaceutical companies challenged the patent’s validity, while AstraZeneca alleged infringement and sought interim injunctions restraining market entry.

The patent was held invalid at trial, and AstraZeneca’s appeal and application for permission to appeal were unsuccessful. The interim injunctions therefore lapsed. This hearing determined reserved costs arising from several interim hearings, including applications involving Glenmark, Teva, Viatris, Sandoz and Bestway.

The central issue was whether the costs of interim injunction applications should follow the eventual outcome of the validity proceedings and whether conduct or other circumstances justified different orders.

1. Reserved interim costs. The court applied Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 44.2. The general rule is that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs, but the court must consider all the circumstances, including conduct, partial success and admissible settlement offers.
2. Where an interim injunction is granted on the balance of convenience to preserve the status quo, success at that stage is provisional. Once the substantive trial has concluded, however, it will generally be possible to identify the successful and unsuccessful parties. On the facts of this case, the party unsuccessful at trial was also unsuccessful for the purpose of the reserved interim costs.
3. The court rejected an issue-by-issue approach. The relevant question was which side had succeeded overall. AstraZeneca was therefore ordered to pay Glenmark’s costs of the April application and the Generic Companies’ costs of the May hearing.
4. Sandoz’s conduct in launching products without properly ascertaining whether it was free to enter the market made the April hearing unnecessary. Its late and imprecise offer of undertakings did not alter that conclusion. AstraZeneca was awarded its costs against Sandoz and Bestway on the indemnity basis.
5. The court found no party responsible for an adjournment caused by a late letter from the Department of Health and Social Care. No additional costs order was made on that account. Interim payments were ordered at 65% of the costs claimed by Teva, Glenmark, Viatris and Sandoz.

The judgment records that the patent was held invalid at first instance on 28 April 2025. The Court of Appeal dismissed AstraZeneca’s appeal on 16 July 2025, and the Supreme Court refused permission to appeal on 31 July 2025. This judgment determined reserved costs arising from interim applications in the concluded proceedings.