Litigation Update • December 12, 2025

Delhi High Court Clears Dr. Reddy's for Semaglutide Exports: Refuses Novo Nordisk Stay

In a significant development for the Indian pharmaceutical sector, the Delhi High Court (Division Bench) has today refused to stay a Single Judge's order permitting Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) to manufacture and export Semaglutide.

This ruling comes as a setback for Danish pharma giant Novo Nordisk, the patent holder of the blockbuster drugs Ozempic and Wegovy, which had sought to completely block DRL from manufacturing the drug in India.

⚖️ The Verdict at a Glance

• The Decision: The Division Bench (Justices C. Hari Shankar & O.P. Shukla) upheld the Single Judge's interim order.
• The Winner (Today): Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories.
• The Outcome: DRL can manufacture and export Semaglutide to countries where Novo Nordisk has no patent.
• The Restriction: DRL is barred from selling the drug domestically in India until Novo's patent expires in March 2026.

The Core Dispute

Novo Nordisk holds the patent (IN’697) for Semaglutide in India, which is valid until March 2026. They argued that any manufacturing of the drug within India—even for export purposes—infringes their exclusive patent rights.

Dr. Reddy's countered that their manufacturing is solely for export to "patent-free" jurisdictions and does not harm Novo's Indian market share.

Why the Court Ruled for Dr. Reddy's

The Division Bench found Novo Nordisk’s case for an immediate stay to be "prima facie weak." Their reasoning focused on three main pillars:

1. No Irreparable Harm: Since DRL is strictly prohibited from selling the drug in India, Novo Nordisk’s domestic market remains protected.
2. The "Evergreening" Shadow: The court noted DRL's "credible challenge" regarding the validity of Novo's patent, citing potential issues of "evergreening" (extending a patent lifespan through minor modifications without significant therapeutic value).
3. Balance of Convenience: Stopping DRL's export operations now would cause them significant financial loss, whereas allowing it does not directly