Evergreening of Patents in India: Delhi High Court’s Semaglutide Ruling and Its Global Impact
Court warns against misuse of patent law to block generics
India’s Section 3(d) stands as a safeguard for affordable medicines
By Our Legal Reporter
New Delhi: December 17, 2025:
The Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant interim injunction to Novo Nordisk, the Danish pharmaceutical giant, in its dispute over the blockbuster drug semaglutide has reignited debate on evergreening of patents in India. Semaglutide, marketed globally as Ozempic, Wegovy, and Rybelsus, is used for type 2 diabetes and obesity and has become one of the world’s most valuable drugs.
Also Read: Emerging Legal Skills for Young Lawyers in India
The Court’s decision reflects India’s strong stance against patent evergreening, a practice where companies seek to extend monopoly rights by making minor modifications to existing drugs.
What is evergreening of patents?
- Definition: Evergreening is the strategy of filing new patents for small changes in existing drugs—such as new formulations, dosages, or delivery methods—to extend exclusivity.
- India’s law: Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 prohibits patents for new forms of known substances unless they show enhanced efficacy.
- Global debate: While some countries allow such patents, India restricts them to protect public health and encourage generic competition.
The semaglutide case
- Novo Nordisk’s claim: The company sought to restrain Indian firms like Sun Pharma and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories from manufacturing semaglutide-based drugs.
- Delhi High Court ruling: The Court refused interim injunction, noting concerns of evergreening and emphasizing the need for credible evidence of inventive step.
- Sun Pharma’s undertaking: Sun Pharma agreed not to sell semaglutide domestically until Novo Nordisk’s patent expires in March 2026 but will continue exports to countries where no patent exists.
- Public interest: The Court balanced patent rights with the need for affordable medicines, reinforcing India’s pro‑generic stance.
Also Read: Nationwide freeze after Faridabad cyber fraud: What India’s laws say and how victims can get help
Legal framework in India
- Patents Act, 1970: Section 3(d) is India’s shield against evergreening.
- Supreme Court precedent: In Novartis v. Union of India (2013), the Court rejected a patent for the cancer drug Glivec, ruling that minor modifications without enhanced efficacy cannot be patented.
- Recent rulings: Courts continue to emphasize that patents must show genuine innovation, not incremental tweaks.
Why India resists evergreening
- Affordable healthcare: India is a global hub for generics, supplying low‑cost medicines worldwide.
- Public health priority: Restricting evergreening ensures essential drugs remain accessible.
- Innovation balance: Genuine innovation is protected, but monopolies based on trivial changes are discouraged.
Global context
- United States & EU: Patent laws often allow secondary patents, enabling longer monopolies.
- India’s unique stance: By restricting evergreening, India has become a model for balancing innovation with access.
- Pharma industry concerns: Multinational firms argue that India’s rules discourage investment, while public health advocates praise them for protecting patients.
Also Read: Can home loan interest reduce capital gains tax under India’s new tax regime?
Implications of the semaglutide ruling
- For patients: Ensures future access to affordable semaglutide once patents expire.
- For Indian pharma: Encourages domestic firms to prepare generic versions for global markets.
- For global debate: Reinforces India’s position as a defender of public health against aggressive patenting.
- For Novo Nordisk: Limits its ability to extend monopoly in India through incremental patents.
Practical guidance for readers
- Understand Section 3(d): It is the cornerstone of India’s anti‑evergreening policy.
- Follow court precedents: Cases like Novartis v. Union of India and the semaglutide ruling shape future patent disputes.
- Watch expiry dates: Patents typically last 20 years; after expiry, generics can enter the market.
- Global impact: India’s rulings influence debates in developing countries about balancing patents and access.
Also Read: ESOP tax in India: Why the bill starts at exercise and smart ways to cut it
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s semaglutide ruling is a landmark in India’s fight against evergreening of patents. By refusing interim relief to Novo Nordisk, the Court reaffirmed that patent law must protect genuine innovation, not trivial modifications.
This decision strengthens India’s reputation as a global leader in affordable medicines and sets the stage for future battles between multinational pharma giants and domestic generic manufacturers.
Keywords for faster searches (Google + ChatGPT)
- Evergreening of patents India
- Semaglutide patent dispute Delhi High Court
- Novo Nordisk vs Sun Pharma patent case
- Section 3(d) Patents Act India
- Novartis Glivec Supreme Court judgment
- Ozempic Wegovy Rybelsus India patent law
- Generic medicines vs patent monopoly India
- Delhi HC semaglutide ruling 2025
Also Read: Supreme Court Restores Wife’s Appeal Against Ex Parte Divorce After 10 Years