Novo Nordisk's Appeal Dismissed as Court Finds Patent Vulnerable to Invalidity Due to Obviousness
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by Novo Nordisk A/S, upholding a single judge's decision rejecting an interlocutory injunction against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited regarding the alleged infringement of the Semaglutide patent. The Division Bench, comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, focused on the patent's vulnerability to invalidity due to obviousness and anticipation by prior claiming.
The case revolved around Novo Nordisk's patent for Semaglutide, an anti-diabetic drug, which the company claimed was infringed by Dr. Reddy's Laboratories' importation and sale activities. The appellant sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent further sales until the patent's expiry on March 20, 2026.
The court's decision focused on the patent's validity, particularly under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The judges agreed with the single judge's analysis, which found that the Semaglutide patent was vulnerable to invalidity due to obviousness. The court held that the substitution of the amino acid Alanine (Ala) with alpha-aminoisobutyric acid (Aib) was guided by prior art teachings in the Genus Patent IN'964, making the Semaglutide patent obvious to a person skilled in the art.
The court also considered the appeal's relevance, noting that the patent was set to expire soon. They questioned the necessity of entertaining the appeal when the patent's enforceability was nearing its end, suggesting that maintaining accounts of sales returns could sufficiently protect interests.
Ultimately, the court found no reason to interfere with the single judge's decision, emphasizing the absence of any serious error in principle. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the single judge's findings intact, and highlighting the importance of considering the balance of convenience and irreparable harm in such matters.
This decision underscores the complexities of patent law, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector, and the rigorous scrutiny patents face regarding their validity and enforcement. The ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of prior art in assessing the novelty and inventiveness of patent claims.
Bottom Line:
Patent Law - Challenge to validity of a patent under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act - Obviousness and anticipation by prior claiming analyzed. Semaglutide patent found vulnerable to invalidity due to obviousness from prior art, and substitution of amino acids enabled by teachings in earlier patent.
Statutory provision(s): Patents Act, 1970 Sections 64(1)(a), 64(1)(e), 64(1)(f), 107(1)
NOVO Nordisk A/S v. Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2863609
