AUTH/3653/5/22: Eli Lilly v Novo Nordisk — GLP-1RA supply emails ruled disparaging (Clause 6.6) | PMCPA Case

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/3653/5/22
Parties	Eli Lilly and Company Limited v Novo Nordisk Ltd
Subject	Promotional emails to HCPs about GLP-1RA supply availability during Lilly Trulicity higher-dose supply outage
Applicable Code year	2021
Complaint received	31 May 2022
Case completed	5 April 2023
Appeal	No appeal
Material identifiers	UK22OZM00010 (sent to 873 HCPs; available 3 Feb–16 Mar 2022); UK22RYB00026 (sent to 13 HCPs; available 9 Feb–16 Mar 2022)
Products referenced	Trulicity (dulaglutide) supply issue; Ozempic (semaglutide) and Rybelsus (semaglutide tablets) availability
Breach	Clause 6.6
No breach	Clauses 5.1 and 2
Sanction	Undertaking received

Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors — instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI

🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough

🎬

Video walkthrough — coming for members

Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.

Subscribe — from £299/yr

📋

⌄

Eli Lilly complained about promotional emails sent by Novo Nordisk to health professionals about GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) supply during a temporary stock outage of higher-dose Trulicity (dulaglutide 3.0mg and 4.5mg) in the UK.
The emails referenced Lilly’s supply issue and then stated: “Novo Nordisk’s priority is maintaining supply of treatment…” followed by reassurance that Ozempic and Rybelsus were available.
Novo Nordisk said the emails were intended to respond to HCP enquiries and to reassure that Ozempic and Rybelsus had no stock-out issues; the template was certified promotional material and used by sales reps.
The email template (UK22OZM00010) was issued 3 Feb 2022 and withdrawn 16 Mar 2022; it was sent to 873 HCPs. A similar representative-triggered email (UK22RYB00026) was available 9 Feb–16 Mar 2022 and sent to 13 HCPs.
Lilly alleged the emails disparaged Lilly and misled readers about DHSC communications/guidance (including the DHSC email and the later Medicine Supply Notification (MSN)).
Novo Nordisk had undertaken to self-report other issues (date of preparation, adverse event reporting statement, and unique reference number), but Lilly confined this complaint to Clauses 6.6, 5.1 and 2.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 6.6 — Disparaging another company.
No breach of Clause 5.1 — Requirement to maintain high standards (based on the complainant’s allegations).
No breach of Clause 2 — Requirement that activities or material must not bring discredit upon, or reduce confidence in, the pharmaceutical industry.
No appeal.

🔒

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value

£249/year

Annual — save £99

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access