Novo Nordisk Loses Bid to Block Lilly's GLP-1 Ads: What the Court Decided
What the opinion decides
In a signed October 26 opinion, District of New Jersey Judge Zahid N. Quraishi rejected Novo Nordisk's request for a preliminary injunction against certain Lilly advertisements. The case is Novo Nordisk Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al., No. 3:26-cv-09027.[1]
Novo challenged Zepbound–Wegovy and Mounjaro–Ozempic comparisons, including reliance on studies that did not test subsequently available higher Novo doses.[1]
Preliminary relief denied; no final merits judgment. Refusing an immediate advertising restriction does not establish that every challenged claim is truthful.
Why the judge refused relief
The court found Novo had not demonstrated irreparable harm. It cited stable prescription volumes and inadequate support for threatened sales, goodwill and reputational injuries that could not be addressed with money damages.[1]
As an additional basis, the judge applied the unclean-hands doctrine: Novo had previously used similar comparative advertising after higher doses of Lilly's Trulicity became available.[1]
The opinion also makes limited, preliminary merits observations, questioning Novo's showing and discussing Lilly's disclosures and consumer-confusion evidence. Those observations should not be omitted, but they are not a final resolution of the advertising claims.[1]
What remains unresolved
The opinion addresses preliminary relief, not dismissal of the entire case. It supplies no new clinical trial results and makes no change to FDA approval, retatrutide classification or peptide-compounding permissions.
Our editorial takeaway: a legal decision about immediate relief and a scientific assessment of comparative efficacy answer different questions. Readers should keep a comparison tied to the doses, participants, duration and outcomes actually studied. We do not use this opinion to recommend one medicine over another.
Court document and sources
- Signed October 26, 2026 court opinion, ECF No. 66 (public copy hosted by Justia). Relevant discussion: pp. 12–13, 19–25; preliminary merits observations: p. 21, footnote 3.
- Public docket listing (may lag PACER)
Verification scope: the complete signed 25-page opinion was reviewed, including its conclusion. It states that an accompanying order will follow; that separate order and a complete current PACER docket were not independently retrieved. This article reports the opinion's decision and reasoning and does not establish subsequent filings or an appeal.