Semaglutide’s Second Patent Falls Flat: Delhi HC Draws a Hard Line on Evergreening

Semaglutide is the rare drug that sits at the intersection of science, culture and capital. The Delhi High Court’s semaglutide order in CS(COMM) 565/2025 Novo Nordisk v Dr Reddy’s shows how Indian courts will police the outer edge of that capital: the extra years companies try to add through follow‑on patents.​

Novo’s enforcement hinged on a later “species” patent, IN262697, claiming semaglutide as a specific GLP‑1 analogue. An older “genus” patent, IN275964, had already claimed a broad family of long‑acting GLP‑1 derivatives and run its full 20‑year term. At the interim stage, the Court refused an injunction, not because there was no infringement, but because it saw a strong prima facie case that IN’697 was vulnerable on validity.​

Three planks mattered; First, on a technical read, the Court held that a skilled person could move from the genus disclosure (including Example 61) to semaglutide using a known substitution at position 8 (Ala to Aib), within a problem–solution framework already set by the genus patent: extend half‑life and dosing interval of GLP‑1 analogues. That pushed the case towards obviousness and prior claiming.​

Second, the Court treated Novo’s own behaviour as data. Form 27 filings clubbed both patents for the same commercial products (Rybelsus / Wegovy). Foreign patent term extensions and SPCs for semaglutide repeatedly relied on the genus family. Together, these were read as admissions that semaglutide was already inside the genus patent’s scope, making the later patent look like a time shifted repackaging of the same inventive concept.​

Third, the Court framed this as evergreening and double patenting in Indian terms: same inventors, same technical trajectory (long acting GLP‑1), same commercial molecule, split into sequential filings. That was enough to find a credible challenge under Sections 64(1)(a), (e) and (f), despite the patent’s age and global success. Grant alone did not create a presumption of validity.​

Relief was calibrated. Dr Reddy’s must not sell in India but can manufacture in India and export semaglutide to countries where Novo lacks patent protection, subject to strict accounting. The Court also criticised Reddy’s for not clearing the way with an earlier revocation, signalling that both originators and generics are expected to behave like sophisticated repeat players, not opportunists.​

The judgment effectively says: platform innovation will be rewarded, but patent portfolio design, including genus and species strategy, filing timelines and internal consistency across jurisdictions, will decide whether follow‑on rights survive scrutiny in India.

Novo Nordisk v Dr Reddy’s CS(COMM) 565/2025

Read the judgement copy here.