Will a court grant Novo Nordisk a preliminary injunction against HIMS compounded semaglutide products by September 30, 2026?

PI in patent cases requires all four eBay factors. The timeline is the binding constraint. From complaint filing (Feb 9) to full briefing, oral argument, and ruling by Sep 30 is ~7.5 months. Courts typically take 3-6 months for PI motions in patent cases even without claim construction disputes. Semaglutide patent claims are chemically specific, making technical claim construction likely. The irreparable harm factor is weak for Novo: HIMS would argue money damages are adequate since harm is quantifiable. Public interest cuts against Novo given political salience of affordable GLP-1 access. Base rate of 5-15% for pharma patent PIs, combined with timeline compression, anchors this at ~10%.

The rare path to YES requires: Novo files PI motion immediately, court fast-tracks, claim construction is not required before PI ruling, and FDA's shortage-based compounding authorization does not create a public interest shield. Management silence on the earnings call (14 days after the complaint) suggests HIMS legal team is not alarmed — likely because they believe the timeline makes a PI by Sep 30 implausible and/or they have strong defenses. The base rate of 5-15% for pharma patent PIs, discounted by the tight timeline and HIMS's likely vigorous opposition, puts probability below 10%.

The cross-market interaction with FDA enforcement is the most important conditional factor. If FDA declares the shortage ended and bans compounding, the public interest defense evaporates and Novo's PI case strengthens substantially. But the question requires BOTH FDA action AND a court PI ruling within the same ~7.5 month window — each independently is unlikely, together extremely unlikely. Additionally, September 30 may be physically impossible for full PI proceedings in a technically complex patent case where HIMS will file vigorous opposition, demand claim construction, and potentially seek continuances. The lowest of the three opus runs reflects this compounding uncertainty.

Base rate for pharma patent PIs sits at 5-15%. The 7.5-month timeline from filing is tight but not categorically impossible. Key swing factor: whether Novo filed or imminently files the PI motion. If Novo waits months to file the PI motion (common in patent cases where parties explore settlement), the timeline collapses entirely. HIMS's 70%+ personalized revenue metric cuts both ways — it shows the injunction would cause severe economic harm to HIMS (balance of equities weighs against PI), but also shows ongoing large-scale infringement (irreparable harm for Novo). Balanced view lands at the upper range of the base rate.

Weight loss subscriber growth at 70%+ YoY could help Novo argue ongoing and escalating infringement for the irreparable harm element. But courts in patent cases often defer claim construction until Markman hearings, which come after full discovery and typically take 12-18 months. A PI ruling before Markman is unusual in technically complex patent cases involving chemical compound claims. The financial strain on HIMS ($929M cash vs $1B convert + $1.15B Eucalyptus commitments) doesn't affect the legal PI standard, but does mean HIMS will fight the PI motion aggressively as an existential threat. Slight discount from run 4 given the Markman consideration.

The previous 18% prediction from Feb 9 appears slightly high in retrospect. Key evidence that has emerged: (1) no PI motion has apparently been filed yet 14 days after complaint, (2) management silence on earnings call suggests no emergency posture, (3) the September 30 timeline grows tighter each passing week without a PI motion filing. The base rate should be discounted further by the timeline constraint. However, Novo's patent position extending to 2032 provides strong merits argument if claims facially cover compounded semaglutide. Holding at upper range of ~12% given Novo's strong patent position offsetting timeline concerns.

Pharma patent PI base rate is approximately 5-15%. The 7.5-month timeline from complaint to ruling is tight. Timeline constraint is the dominant factor. No PI motion has been filed yet (14 days post-complaint), reducing the effective window. Courts need adequate time for full briefing, potential Markman hearing, and ruling. Down from the previous 18% prediction given that 14 days have passed without apparent PI motion filing.

No PI motion filed as of 14 days after complaint. Each passing day reduces probability of September 30 ruling. HIMS has strong legal defenses: public interest in affordable GLP-1, adequate remedy at law (damages), and balance of equities given 70%+ of revenue at stake. Novo has strong patent position but timeline is the binding constraint. 10% reflects the base rate floor discounted by timeline erosion.

Public interest in affordable GLP-1 access plus tight timeline plus rare base rate equals low probability. Down from 18% on updated analysis. The 70%+ personalized revenue figure and 70%+ YoY subscriber growth demonstrate HIMS's business would be severely damaged, weighing against balance-of-equities factor for PI. September 30 deadline is achievable only with an unusually fast court schedule and early PI motion filing by Novo.