2026 SCC OnLine Del 898
Delhi High Court (Division Bench) | Decided on 9 March 2026
The Delhi High Court (Division Bench) dismissed Novo Nordisk’s appeal and upheld the Single Judge’s refusal to grant an interim injunction against Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories. While the Court agreed that the defendants had raised a credible challenge to the validity of Novo Nordisk’s patent for Semaglutide, it clarified that the Single Judge had incorrectly analysed the issue under Section 64(1)(a) (anticipation by prior claiming). The Division Bench held that the reasoning based on what a person skilled in the art would derive from the earlier genus patent properly falls within Sections 64(1)(e) (anticipation by prior publication) and 64(1)(f) (obviousness), rather than Section 64(1)(a), which requires actual congruence of claims. Since a credible challenge under any ground of Section 64 is sufficient as a defence under Section 107, the Court found no reason to interfere with the discretionary order refusing interim relief. The Court further clarified that its observations were only prima facie and would not affect the final adjudication of the suit.
Authored by Naga Chandu T.