$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 19 January 2026 Pronounced on: 9 March 2026 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 204/2025 & CM APPL. 78607/2025 NOVO NORDISK A/S .....Appellant Through: Mr. Hemant Singh, Ms. Mamta Jha, Mr. Rishabh Paliwal, Mr. Shreyansh Gupta, Mr. Sanchit Sharma, Advs.

versus DR REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Gopal Subramanium, and Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Mohit Goel, Mr. Sidhant Goel, Mr. Aditya Goel, Mr. Deepankar Mishra, Mr. Kartikeya Tandon, Mr. Pavan Bhushan, Mr. Avinash Sharma, Mr. Raghav Kohli, Mr. Adnan Yousuf and Mr. Ankit Malhotra, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

JUDGMENT

% 09.03.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

A. Some prefatory thoughts

1. This case makes us ponder, and we have said so in open Court.

2. The dispute relates to a patent held by the appellant for Semaglutide, which is an anti-diabetic. The appellant claims that, in December 2024, it came to learn that the respondents were importing Semaglutide. On the ground that said import infringed the appellant’s patent, the suit, from which this appeal emanates, came to be instituted only in 2025. The suit was accompanied, as such suits always are, with an application seeking an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondents from manufacturing or selling Semaglutide in the Indian market. That application was rejected by the learned Single Judge on 2 December 2025, by a detailed and well-reasoned judgment. The appellant is in appeal.

3. Thus far, we have no issue. What perturbs us is the fact that this appeal has been preferred when the suit patent itself is to expire on 20 March 2026. On the date when this appeal was argued before us, and judgment was reserved, a little over two months remained, for the suit patent to expire. It is not the appellant’s case that the respondent is manufacturing sub-standard drugs. In any event, after 20 March 2026, the appellant would no longer be able to enforce the suit patent, and it would be open to exploitation by the world at large.

4. What irreparable loss, we ask ourselves, is the appellant suffering, as a result of the impugned judgment? Why, for that matter, should we even spend valuable time of the Court when a mere two months were left for the suit patent to expire? When Courts are inundated with cases, of far greater urgency, which it has no time to decide, should we at all entertain such an appeal? Is the appeal not liable to be dismissed even on the principles of balance of convenience and irreparable loss, de hors the merits of the case?

5. At the highest, even if the appellant were to succeed, it would have, to its credit, only a prima facie view in its favour. The opinions we express would have no impact on the adjudication of the lis in the suit. Why, then, should we express them at all?

6. This case, at least, relates to drugs. We have, before us, appeals involving patent claims relating to far more pedestrian products, in which interlocutory orders, under Order XXXIX of the CPC, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are challenged. It is clear, to us, that the case does not involve any issue of urgency, much less pressing urgency. And yet, such appeals are argued for hours at a stretch, holding up, in the process, matters, perhaps relating to the poor and needy, who may be waiting for years without a job or means to fend for themselves and their families, waiting for justice.

7. We wonder - if such persons could access the Court proceedings – as, now, everyone can – and were to notice how Courts hear matters, which are of no serious moment to either party or to the public at large, for hours at a stretch, while they keep waiting, what would they think? We can claim to be abiding by our oath of office only when we can ensure that justice percolates down to the little man and his small family, huddled beneath a torn blanket under the ramshackle railway bridge, in the chilly winter night.

8. We are not, by these ob