High Court grants Novo Nordisk dynamic blocking order against six UK internet service providers to combat counterfeit Ozempic and Wegovy websites
The Intellectual Property List of the Chancery Division has granted Novo Nordisk a 'dynamic blocking' order against six major UK internet service providers — BT, EE, Plusnet, Sky, TalkTalk, and Virgin Media — enabling the pharmaceutical company to designate counterfeit medicinal product websites for blocking without returning to court each time a new site is identified. Mr Justice Adam Johnson delivered the judgment on 23 June 2026 in *Novo Nordisk A/S and Anor v British Telecommunications Plc and Ors* [2026] EWHC 1535 (Ch), varying an existing order made by Mellor J in October 2025. That original order required the six ISPs (internet service providers) to block websites selling counterfeit and unlicensed versions of Novo Nordisk's semaglutide products Ozempic and Wegovy — the widely prescribed GLP-1 receptor agonist weight-loss and diabetes drugs that have generated significant counterfeiting activity. The dynamic mechanism is notable because it shifts the enforcement trigger from a court-by-court application to a streamlined designation process controlled by Novo Nordisk. Mr Justice Adam Johnson acknowledged initial scepticism about the mechanism's propriety, particularly where certain criteria might not engage Novo Nordisk's private intellectual property rights directly, leaving regulatory and criminal wrongdoing as the basis for the order. The judgment is a significant development in the use of dynamic blocking orders as an intellectual property and consumer safety enforcement tool in English courts.
Why this matters
Dynamic blocking orders represent the frontier of IP enforcement via internet intermediaries in English law. By varying the October 2025 order to permit Novo Nordisk to designate sites without returning to court, Adam Johnson J has extended the mechanism beyond its original copyright-focused use into pharmaceutical IP and consumer safety territory. The court's acknowledgment of scepticism about cases where private IP rights are not directly engaged — and its decision to proceed anyway on the basis of regulatory and criminal wrongdoing — is a significant doctrinal step that will be scrutinised by IP litigators and internet platform operators alike. For law firms, this type of matter requires IP litigation, regulatory, and technology law expertise operating in combination. The Ozempic counterfeiting problem is global; this English judgment will be watched closely by brand owners in pharmaceuticals and beyond who are considering similar applications.
On the Ground
On this type of IP dispute a trainee would assist with disclosure review and categorisation of evidence identifying counterfeit websites, help prepare the witness statement bundle for any contested hearings on the designation criteria, and maintain the chronology of the injunction's procedural history from the October 2025 original order through to the current variation. They would also coordinate court filing and service of the varied order on all six ISP respondents.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“What is a dynamic blocking order in English law, and what was the doctrinal concern Mr Justice Adam Johnson had to address before granting it in Novo Nordisk v BT?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeMy notes
saved