The Delhi High Court has refused to grant an immediate interim stay on an earlier single-judge order that permitted Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories to manufacture and export semaglutide-based formulations to countries where Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk does not hold patent rights. The ruling came during a hearing on an appeal filed by Novo Nordisk challenging the single-judge’s December 2 order, which had allowed Dr. Reddy’s to produce and export the drug for jurisdictions outside Novo’s patent territory while restraining domestic sales in India until expiry of the relevant patent in March 2026. The Division Bench, consisting of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, heard Novo Nordisk’s application for interim relief and considered whether the original order should be stayed pending final adjudication of the appeal.
Novo Nordisk argued that allowing Dr. Reddy’s to manufacture semaglutide for export itself constituted patent infringement, contending that production of the drug — even for export — undermined its exclusive rights under the Patents Act and should be halted immediately. The company urged that the Court intervene because continued production and export could cause it irreparable harm, potentially weakening its patent estate and market position globally.
The High Court acknowledged that the act of manufacturing a patented drug can constitute infringement, but underscored that the single judge’s order was limited in scope. The earlier order had granted only a narrow form of interim relief: Dr. Reddy’s was permitted to export semaglutide to countries where no patent exists while being barred from selling the drug within India or exporting it to jurisdictions where Novo Nordisk holds patent rights. The Division Bench emphasised that this limited window of relief did not justify a broad stay at an ex-parte stage, especially where the single-judge order had not wholly dismissed Novo’s claims, but had balanced competing considerations prima facie.
The Court observed that Novo Nordisk’s appeal raised complex questions about patent validity and infringement that could not be resolved in the context of an initial interim stay application. It noted that whether the patent claims are obvious or invalid required careful analysis of technical and legal issues — matters that could not be decided at first hearing without a full hearing on merits. The bench pointed out that since the relief granted to Dr. Reddy’s was constrained — limited geographically and tied to non-patent territories — the case for urgent interim suspension of that order was not sufficiently strong at that stage.
Accordingly, instead of granting a stay, the High Court issued notice on Novo Nordisk’s appeal and scheduled the matter for final hearing, directing the parties to file concise notes on their arguments before the next date. The Court’s refusal to stay the export permission means that Dr. Reddy’s can continue manufacturing and exporting semaglutide to countries where no patent protection exists for Novo Nordisk, maintaining the status quo set by the single-judge order until the appeal is heard. The broader patent dispute between Novo Nordisk and Dr. Reddy’s — including questions about novelty, patent validity and infringement — will be considered at the next hearing, when the Court will evaluate the substantive issues raised on appeal.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.