Courts Inundated With Cases Of Far Greater Urgency: Delhi HC Upholds Denial Of Injunction To Novo Nordisk

The Court asked as to why it should spend valuable time on an appeal when the suit patent is set to expire on 20-03-2026. With only two months remaining at the time of the hearing, the court noted that even if an injunction were granted, it would offer no real benefit to the patent holder. The Bench lamented that hours of court time are often consumed by such commercial disputes while "the poor and needy" wait years for justice.

Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed, “What irreparable loss, we ask ourselves, is the appellant suffering, as a result of the impugned judgment? Why, for that matter, should we even spend valuable time of the Court when a mere two months were left for the suit patent to expire? When Courts are inundated with cases, of far greater urgency, which it has no time to decide, should we at all entertain such an appeal? Is the appeal not liable to be dismissed even on the principles of balance of convenience and irreparable loss, de hors the merits of the case?...It is clear, to us, that the case does not involve any issue of urgency, much less pressing urgency. And yet, such appeals are argued for hours at a stretch, holding up, in the process, matters, perhaps relating to the poor and needy, who may be waiting for years without a job or means to fend for themselves and their families, waiting for justice”.

“We wonder - if such persons could access the Court proceedings – as, now, everyone can – and were to notice how Courts hear matters, which are of no serious moment to either party or to the public at large, for hours at a stretch, while they keep waiting, what would they think? We can claim to be abiding by our oath of office only when we can ensure that justice percolates down to the little man and his small family, huddled beneath a torn blanket under the ramshackle railway bridge, in the chilly winter night”, the Bench further remarked.

Advocate Hemant Singh appeared for the appellant and Senior Advocates Gopal Subramanium, and J. Sai Deepak appeared for the respondents.

In the matter, the pertinent question that the Court was dealing with was whether Semaglutide was "obvious" based on prior art, specifically an earlier "Genus Patent".

Novo Nordisk had claimed that Dr Reddy’s was importing and exporting Semaglutide in violation of its Indian patent (IN 262697) and sought an interlocutory injunction. However, the defendants argued that the patent lacked novelty and inventive step in light of earlier prior-art disclosures, particularly an earlier genus patent (IN 275964). Accepting this defence at the interim stage, the Court held that the teachings in the earlier patent could enable a person skilled in the art to arrive at Semaglutide, making the later claim susceptible to invalidity.

While partly differing from the Single Judge’s reasoning on anticipation by prior claim, the Division Bench agreed that the defendants had nonetheless established a credible challenge to the patent’s validity. Since such a challenge is sufficient to defeat an interim injunction in a patent infringement suit, the Bench declined to interfere with the earlier order.

However, the Bench even noted, “We are not, by these observations, seeking to run down commercial or, for that matter, intellectual property litigation. We agree that there may be cases which are of considerable moment. Infringement of a patent relating, for example, of a part which has to go into an aircraft, may be an extremely serious matter, as a duplicate part could endanger the lives of thousands. Equally, for example, trade mark infringement cases involving persons who sell duplicate drugs, imitating the registered trade marks of others, may require expeditious adjudication. For that matter, every person is entitled, in law, to assert his intellectual property rights. Even so, at some stage, however, sifting of the matters is, to our mind, essential”.

Accordingly, applying the principles governing appellate interference in interlocutory matters laid down in Wander Ltd v Antox India Pvt Ltd 1990 Supp SCC 727, the Court held that there was no reason to disturb the discretionary order of the Single Judge, and dismissed the appeal.

As the patent is due to enter the public domain in late March 2026, the judgment effectively clears the path for broader market exploitation of the drug shortly.

Cause Title: Novo Nordisk A/S v. Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1911-DB]

Appearances:

Appellant: Hemant Singh, Mamta Jha, Rishabh Paliwal, Shreyansh Gupta, Sanchit Sharma, Advocates.

Respondent: Gopal Subramanium, and J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Advs., Mohit Goel, Sidhant Goel, Aditya Goel, Deepankar Mishra, Kartikeya Tandon, Pavan Bhushan, Avinash Sharma, Raghav Kohli, Adnan Yousuf and Ankit Malhotra, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment