CI read Read what is actually being disputed. Novo is not challenging the SURMOUNT-5 result, it is arguing that a true finding stopped being true when the market moved, because Novo has since launched a dose that did not exist when the trial ran. That is a narrow and genuinely novel legal question: at what point does an accurate claim about a real head-to-head become misleading because a competitor upgraded? Note the weakness Novo has to accept to make it: the comparison it prefers, 47 pounds in one study against 48 in another, is a cross-trial comparison, exactly the kind statisticians and regulators distrust, offered as the fairer alternative to a genuine head-to-head. Scientifically that is the softer ground. Commercially the motive is plain, Novo opened the category and has been overtaken, and when you cannot win on the data you hold you either run another head-to-head, which is slow and may go badly again, or you attack the comparison. The precedent is the part worth watching: pharma companies sue each other over patents constantly and over advertising rarely, and if Novo prevails, every comparative campaign in the industry acquires an expiry date the moment a rival launches a better dose.