For three years straight, I have written on these pages about patent-related issues involving the defining drugs of our lifetimes, GLP-1’s. Let’s go for the fourth year in a row. In 2023, I focused on recently granted patents that the two behemoths in the weight-loss space, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, were adding to their growing portfolios protecting their Ozempic/Wegovy and Mounjaro/Zepbound blockbuster franchises. The following year, it was a look at the unsuccessful efforts being pursued by generics hoping to cash in on the insatiable demands for GLP-1 drugs. (Since then, generic Ozempic has become available, but you need a ticket on Air Canada or Air India if you want to pick it up.) And last year, I covered the lawsuit filed by Lilly against a large compounding pharmacy, a major escalation in the multifront (courts and FDA) war fought by the GLP-1 makers against the compounders whose lower-priced offerings were siphoning off about 10% of prescriptions.
Now, with the threats from compounders and generics mostly contained, we can take a look at the latest piece of GLP-1 news — the surprising false advertising complaint filed by one of the big brands against the other. Before we do so, it is interesting to note that the share price of Lilly since my 2023 column has nearly tripled to its current levels, while that of Novo has taken a significant fall. But even Novo’s GLP-1 revenues have doubled since then, illustrating the continued importance of these drugs to both companies.
As successful as Novo’s Ozempic/Wegovy franchise has been, Lilly’s dominance in terms of share price appreciation is mirrored by the revenue growth of its Mounjaro/Zepbound products. The latter’s revenue is expected to reach around $45 billion for 2026, a near nine-fold increase since 2023. While Lilly has seized a meatier share of the market than Novo, Novo believes that at least some of Lilly’s success is due to false advertising aimed at misleading customers into believing the relative efficacy of Lilly’s products far exceed those of Novo’s. According to Novo, when properly compared, the differences in weight-loss potential between the competing drugs are quite close. In Novo’s view, if told the truth, most patients would choose the drug that was less likely to cause them side effects or was priced better, rather than insisting on Lilly’s products because of a mistaken belief that they would lead to more weight loss. Considering the long-term commitment GLP-1 patients often make to their drug of choice, correcting the record is something Novo believes is very important as it tries to capture as much market share as possible before the next generation of GLP-1’s get released. To that end, Novo filed a false advertising lawsuit last week in the District of New Jersey, a filing that was followed a few days later with a motion for preliminary injunction.
The media reaction to Novo’s filing was immediate, which Novo surely anticipated and almost assuredly welcomed. (Yours truly was even asked to share his views on Novo’s filing with a leading Danish business publication.) Novo’s filing could be viewed as a form of effective counter-advertising, with Novo sending the message that Lilly has to resort to false claims to try to manufacture a competitive advantage against Ozempic/Wegovy. To a consumer, the idea that Lilly’s ads were “untrue enough to get sued” is an easy message to digest and helps generate an effective bit of advertising for Novo, based only on the media attention around the filing. Add in that Novo had sent Lilly a cease-and-desist letter asking for certain changes to Lilly’s advertising before filing, and it would be understandable for a customer to sympathize with the idea that Novo only initiated legal action as a last resort due to Lilly’s intransigence. At the same time, Lilly did at least partially agree to make some changes to its advertising, perhaps setting up a later argument that Novo was overreaching in its claims and that Lilly was the commercially and legally responsible party in the dispute.
With any legal action, however, it is important for the plaintiff to back up the media attention with some success on the merits, particularly when a preliminary injunction is involved. Here, Novo is arguing that Lilly is relying on outdated clinical study results and deliberate dosage miscomparisons to create a narrative that its products are superior. For Novo, the harm is compounded by the scale and reach of Lilly’s marketing, both in terms of social media and television advertisements. Accordingly, Novo’s legal team from Debevoise and Plimpton asks the court to enjoin Lilly from running its current ads. It even goes further, suggesting that the court order Lilly to engage in corrective advertising. For its part, Lilly promises to fight back hard as the case proceeds.
Ultimately, I think this filing is a recognition by Novo that the GLP-1 market in the U.S. is at the stage where these two giants are fighting for every prescription. With the threat from compounded GLP-1’s and generics having arguably been reduced to a manageable level, Novo’s complaint and PI request is a recognition by Novo that it has to get aggressive about acquiring and maintaining market share against Lilly — and that each patient sign-up now, before the launch of more futuristic GLP-1’s, is critical. Thankfully, irrespective of the legal outcome, patients have choices when it comes to their weight-loss and diabetes-management needs. The duopoly at the top of the market is not at risk with this case. What is at stake, however, is how these companies advertise in their bids for more and more market share. Depending on the outcome, this lawsuit may also presage future legal jockeying between these arch competitors. When and how things will unfold is uncertain. For now, we will see if Novo’s lawsuit results in changing how Lilly sells the skinny.
Please feel free to send comments or questions to me at gaston@k2k.law or via Twitter: @gkroub. Any topic suggestions or thoughts are most welcome.
Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of K2K IP Law, an intellectual property litigation boutique that also serves as a leading consultancy on patent issues for the investment community. Gaston’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at gaston@k2k.law or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.
The post Selling The Skinny appeared first on Above the Law.
For three years straight, I have written on these pages about patent-related issues involving the defining drugs of our lifetimes, GLP-1’s. Let’s go for the fourth year in a row. In 2023, I focused on recently granted patents that the two behemoths in the weight-loss space, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, were adding to their growing portfolios protecting their Ozempic/Wegovy and Mounjaro/Zepbound blockbuster franchises. The following year, it was a look at the unsuccessful efforts being pursued by generics hoping to cash in on the insatiable demands for GLP-1 drugs. (Since then, generic Ozempic has become available, but you need a ticket on Air Canada or Air India if you want to pick it up.) And last year, I covered the lawsuit filed by Lilly against a large compounding pharmacy, a major escalation in the multifront (courts and FDA) war fought by the GLP-1 makers against the compounders whose lower-priced offerings were siphoning off about 10% of prescriptions.
Now, with the threats from compounders and generics mostly contained, we can take a look at the latest piece of GLP-1 news — the surprising false advertising complaint filed by one of the big brands against the other. Before we do so, it is interesting to note that the share price of Lilly since my 2023 column has nearly tripled to its current levels, while that of Novo has taken a significant fall. But even Novo’s GLP-1 revenues have doubled since then, illustrating the continued importance of these drugs to both companies.
As successful as Novo’s Ozempic/Wegovy franchise has been, Lilly’s dominance in terms of share price appreciation is mirrored by the revenue growth of its Mounjaro/Zepbound products. The latter’s revenue is expected to reach around $45 billion for 2026, a near nine-fold increase since 2023. While Lilly has seized a meatier share of the market than Novo, Novo believes that at least some of Lilly’s success is due to false advertising aimed at misleading customers into believing the relative efficacy of Lilly’s products far exceed those of Novo’s. According to Novo, when properly compared, the differences in weight-loss potential between the competing drugs are quite close. In Novo’s view, if told the truth, most patients would choose the drug that was less likely to cause them side effects or was priced better, rather than insisting on Lilly’s products because of a mistaken belief that they would lead to more weight loss. Considering the long-term commitment GLP-1 patients often make to their drug of choice, correcting the record is something Novo believes is very important as it tries to capture as much market share as possible before the next generation of GLP-1’s get released. To that end, Novo filed a false advertising lawsuit last week in the District of New Jersey, a filing that was followed a few days later with a motion for preliminary injunction.
The media reaction to Novo’s filing was immediate, which Novo surely anticipated and almost assuredly welcomed. (Yours truly was even asked to share his views on Novo’s filing with a leading Danish business publication.) Novo’s filing could be viewed as a form of effective counter-advertising, with Novo sending the message that Lilly has to resort to false claims to try to manufacture a competitive advantage against Ozempic/Wegovy. To a consumer, the idea that Lilly’s ads were “untrue enough to get sued” is an easy message to digest and helps generate an effective bit of advertising for Novo, based only on the media attention around the filing. Add in that Novo had sent Lilly a cease-and-desist letter asking for certain changes to Lilly’s advertising before filing, and it would be understandable for a customer to sympathize with the idea that Novo only initiated legal action as a last resort due to Lilly’s intransigence. At the same time, Lilly did at least partially agree to make some changes to its advertising, perhaps setting up a later argument that Novo was overreaching in its claims and that Lilly was the commercially and legally responsible party in the dispute.
With any legal action, however, it is important for the plaintiff to back up the media attention with some success on the merits, particularly when a preliminary injunction is involved. Here, Novo is arguing that Lilly is relying on outdated clinical study results and deliberate dosage miscomparisons to create a narrative that its products are superior. For Novo, the harm is compounded by the scale and reach of Lilly’s marketing, both in terms of social media and television advertisements. Accordingly, Novo’s legal team from Debevoise and Plimpton asks the court to enjoin Lilly from running its current ads. It even goes further, suggesting that the court order Lilly to engage in corrective advertising. For its part, Lilly promises to fight back hard as the case proceeds.
Ultimately, I think this filing is a recognition by Novo that the GLP-1 market in the U.S. is at the stage where these two giants are fighting for every prescription. With the threat from compounded GLP-1’s and generics having arguably been reduced to a manageable level, Novo’s complaint and PI request is a recognition by Novo that it has to get aggressive about acquiring and maintaining market share against Lilly — and that each patient sign-up now, before the launch of more futuristic GLP-1’s, is critical. Thankfully, irrespective of the legal outcome, patients have choices when it comes to their weight-loss and diabetes-management needs. The duopoly at the top of the market is not at risk with this case. What is at stake, however, is how these companies advertise in their bids for more and more market share. Depending on the outcome, this lawsuit may also presage future legal jockeying between these arch competitors. When and how things will unfold is uncertain. For now, we will see if Novo’s lawsuit results in changing how Lilly sells the skinny.
Please feel free to send comments or questions to me at [email protected] or via Twitter: @gkroub. Any topic suggestions or thoughts are most welcome.
Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of K2K IP Law, an intellectual property litigation boutique that also serves as a leading consultancy on patent issues for the investment community. Gaston’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.
