Generics (UK) Limited v Astrazeneca AB establishes key costs principles in patent litigation

The High Court's recent judgement in Generics (UK) Limited v Astrazeneca AB (EWHC 2203 (Pat)) has established important precedents regarding cost allocation in multi-party patent disputes. Deputy Judge Michael Tappin KC delivered the ruling following a complex case centring on the validity of patents and supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) for dapagliflozin.

The litigation formed part of a series of disputes between the parties concerning patent validity and associated SPCs. On 28 April 2025, the court declared the relevant patent and SPCs invalid, prompting Astrazeneca to seek and obtain permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal subsequently upheld the original decision on 16 July 2025, with the costs hearing taking place on 1 September 2025.

Cost allocation framework

The judgement reinforced the fundamental principle that unsuccessful parties bear the costs of successful parties in litigation. However, the court recognised the need for nuanced assessment where claimants had experienced mixed success across different aspects of their case.

The court examined several key issues that influenced the final costs order. The claimants had initially pursued a classical obviousness defence but subsequently abandoned this line of argument during proceedings. Despite acknowledging the plausible strategic rationale behind this approach, Deputy Judge Tappin KC determined that the claimants should not recover costs relating to this unsuccessful element. Consequently, a 10% deduction was applied to the claimants' recoverable costs, establishing that parties cannot benefit financially from arguments that merely increase litigation expenses without achieving success.

Disclosure and procedural considerations

The judgement addressed extended disclosure exercise costs, which generally remain recoverable by successful parties. The court rejected Astrazeneca's contention that the claimants' approach to comparative property disclosure warranted cost consequences. The claimants' insistence on such disclosure and their objections to Astrazeneca's requests were deemed standard procedural conduct that did not materially affect the litigation outcome.

Regarding trial listing applications, the court noted pre-existing costs orders and directed appropriate exclusions from broader cost calculations. The judgement also considered pleading amendments introduced by co-claimants Teva and Glenmark, which ultimately led to withdrawal of certain allegations. These matters resulted in proportional deductions reflecting each party's conduct throughout the dispute.

Financial implications and precedent

The court ordered Astrazeneca to make interim payments covering 65% of the claimants' costs following applicable deductions. This approach demonstrates the court's commitment to balancing fairness in financial responsibility allocation based on each party's conduct and success throughout complex proceedings.

The decision provides valuable guidance on cost assessment in intellectual property disputes, particularly where multiple parties advance various arguments with mixed success. The judgement emphasises that strategic decisions to pursue ultimately unsuccessful arguments carry financial consequences, whilst maintaining that standard procedural conduct should not attract cost penalties.

The ruling's careful analysis of each disputed element and proportional approach to deductions offers a framework for future cost assessments in similar multi-faceted patent litigation. The court's methodology in distinguishing between legitimate strategic choices and successful outcomes provides clarity for cost allocation principles in complex intellectual property disputes involving multiple claimants and diverse legal arguments.