The Delhi High Court, in Zydus Lifesciences Limited v. E. R. Squibb and Sons, LLC & Ors., set aside an interim injunction that had earlier restrained Zydus Lifesciences Limited from launching its anti-cancer product “ZRC-3276”. The dispute arose from allegations by the plaintiff that the product infringed Indian Patent No. 340060, which relates to a monoclonal antibody therapy.

The Single Judge had previously granted an interim injunction against Zydus, observing that the impugned product operated within the same therapeutic field as the patented invention. Zydus challenged the order on appeal, contending that the plaintiff had not produced adequate technical evidence to establish infringement. In particular, it was argued that no product-to-claim mapping had been undertaken to demonstrate that the defendant’s product fell within the scope of the claims of the patent.

The Division Bench observed that in patent infringement disputes, the grant of interim relief must be supported by material demonstrating that the defendant’s product falls within the claims of the patent. The Court noted that reliance on general similarities in therapeutic function or application, without expert analysis of the technical features of the competing products, would not suffice to establish a prima facie case of infringement.

The Court also considered the public interest implications of granting injunctions in relation to life-saving medicines. In this context, the Court held that restraining the availability of a competing product without sufficient technical evidence could adversely affect access to treatment.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the interim injunction and permitted Zydus to continue marketing the product, subject to the condition that periodic audited sales accounts be filed before the Court pending final adjudication of the suit.

Source: Zydus Lifesciences Limited v. E. R. Squibb and Sons, LLC & Ors., FAO(OS)(COMM) 120/2025 (Delhi High Court).