Judge Rejects Novo Nordisk Bid to Block Eli Lilly Obesity Drug Ads

The fight between the world's two biggest makers of obesity drugs has moved from the pharmacy counter to the courtroom, and the first round has gone to Eli Lilly.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Zahid Quraishi denied Novo Nordisk's request for a preliminary injunction that would have blocked a Lilly advertising campaign comparing Lilly's Zepbound with Novo's Wegovy, BioPharma Dive reported. Bloomberg Law also reported the ruling.

The Dispute

Novo sued Lilly in July, arguing that the campaign was deceptive. According to BioPharma Dive, Novo claimed the ads relied on outdated studies that compared higher doses of Lilly's medicine with lower doses of Novo's, and did not account for a newer, higher dose form of Wegovy that has since been approved.

Novo said the campaign caused it "irreparable harm" and asked the court to stop the ads while the case proceeds. The motion was argued at a two day hearing in August.

The campaign leans on a head to head clinical trial in which Zepbound outperformed the original version of Wegovy, a result Lilly has made central to its marketing.

Why the Judge Said No

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. A party seeking one must show, among other things, that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm without it. Judge Quraishi found that Novo had not made that showing.

BioPharma Dive reported that the judge relied on evidence that Wegovy prescription volume did not fall during the April to July period when the commercials aired. Lilly's U.S. finance chief, Mark Stempel, testified that Wegovy prescriptions stayed stable during that time. Novo's own witness, Derrick Gastineau, the company's U.S. vice president for obesity, "had not attempted to determine" any harm, the judge wrote.

The court also noted that Lilly changed the language of newer Zepbound ads after receiving a cease and desist letter. The updated ads acknowledge the existence of high dose Wegovy and say it was not tested against Zepbound.

A Pointed Note on Novo's Own Ads

The ruling did not stop at Lilly's conduct. According to BioPharma Dive, Judge Quraishi also criticized Novo's advertising for Ozempic, its diabetes drug. Those ads claimed head to head superiority over Lilly's Trulicity without disclosing that a higher dose version of Trulicity was available.

For a party asking a court to police a rival's comparative claims, that observation is uncomfortable. Courts weighing equitable relief often look at whether the party seeking it has acted the same way.

What the Ruling Does Not Decide

Novo stressed that the decision is not the end of the case. A Novo spokesperson told BioPharma Dive that the ruling did not "decide the question of whether Lilly's advertising is false and misleading," and that it only addressed whether the court would issue an order at this early stage.

That is correct as a matter of procedure. The denial of a preliminary injunction is not a judgment on the merits. Novo's false advertising claims remain pending and can still be litigated through discovery and, potentially, trial.

The Stakes

The legal fight sits inside one of the most intense commercial battles in the history of the drug industry. BioPharma Dive reported that Wall Street analysts expect the obesity drug market to exceed $100 billion by 2030. Lilly's tirzepatide, sold as Zepbound for obesity and Mounjaro for diabetes, has become the industry's best selling product, and Lilly has become the first biopharma company valued at a trillion dollars.

For other drugmakers, the ruling is a reminder that comparative advertising claims are judged on evidence of real market harm, not only on the wording of the ads. Any company seeking to stop a rival's campaign early will need sales data, not just objections.

For now, Lilly's ads stay on the air. Court Magazine will follow the case as it moves toward the merits.