Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 06 FEBRUARY 2026

Essential Medicines & Injunctions – Delhi High Court's Landmark Balancing Act

De Penning & De Penning
Explore more from De Penning & De Penning

The Delhi High Court's recent decision in Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, LLC [2026:DHC:178-DB, dated 12 January 2026] marks an important precedent in the handling of biosimilars and injunctions.

IndiaIntellectual Property
Anitha Elizebeth
Anitha Elizebeth
Author LinkedIn connections

The Delhi High Court's recent decision in Zydus Lifesciences Ltd. v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, LLC [2026:DHC:178-DB, dated 12 January 2026] marks an important precedent in the handling of biosimilars and injunctions.

The Dispute

At the heart of the case was Zydus's proposed launch of ZRC 3276, a biosimilar to the monoclonal antibody Nivolumab, marketed internationally as Opdivo® and in India as Opdyta®. The Indian patent for Nivolumab (IN 340060) is held by E.R. Squibb & Sons, LLC, a subsidiary of Bristol Myers Squibb. In July 2025, a single judge granted an interim injunction restraining Zydus from marketing its biosimilar on grounds of patent infringement.

The Appeal

On appeal, the Division Bench (Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla) overturned the interim injunction and permitted Zydus to market ZRC 3276 until the patent's expiry in May 2026. To safeguard the patentee's interests, the Court directed Zydus to maintain detailed accounts of sales and

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Copy, Right? ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC

When an artificial intelligence system is trained on copyrighted news content, and later answers a user’s question using what it learned, has the law been broken? On 24th July 2026, the Delhi High Court answered that question, at least for now. In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding, on a prima facie, interim stage view, that the company’s use of ANI’s news content to train its large language models (“LLMs”) falls within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957
IndiaIntellectual Property
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

AI Training Data, Copyright Risk And Commercial Liability: What Businesses Need To Know

On 8 October 2026, USA Today Co. and its affiliated newspaper companies, which publish 19 titles including USA Today, the Detroit Free Press and The Arizona Republic, sued seven OpenAI entities in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that OpenAI copied their journalism to train its models, stripped identifying information from it, and now uses those models to give ChatGPT users summaries that substitute for the original reporting. The publishers seek more than USD 250 million in damages, an injunction and an order for the destruction of models and training sets containing their content.
IndiaIntellectual Property
Legitpro Law
Legitpro Law