Delhi High Court Allows Zydus Lifesciences to Sell Anti-Cancer Drug Nivolumab Biosimilar in India
Delhi High Court's division bench has allowed Zydus Lifesciences to sell its nivolumab biosimilar in India, overturning a July 2025 injunction granted to patent holder E.R. Squibb & Sons LLC. The court cited public interest and the patent's May 2, 2026 expiry date, while directing Zydus to maintain audited sales records for potential compensation. The dispute began when Squibb alleged Zydus was preparing to launch its ZRC-3276 biosimilar before patent expiry, with Zydus defending its activities under regulatory exemptions.

*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant ruling in favor of Zydus Lifesciences, allowing the pharmaceutical company to sell and market its biosimilar version of the life-saving anti-cancer drug nivolumab in India. A division bench comprising justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla modified an earlier injunction, citing public interest and the imminent expiry of the patent held by innovator E.R. Squibb & Sons LLC.
Court's Decision and Rationale
The division bench overturned a July 2025 single-judge order that had restrained Zydus from launching its biosimilar following a plea by E.R. Squibb & Sons LLC, which markets the original drug under the brand Opdivo. The court noted that Squibb's patent is scheduled to expire on May 2, 2026, and emphasized that nivolumab is a crucial life-saving cancer medication.
"We are therefore unable to satisfy ourselves that, on this material, the learned single judge was justified in entirely injuncting the appellant from releasing its product in the market," the court observed during its verbal pronouncement. The bench determined that the balance of convenience favored permitting the biosimilar's sale for the remaining patent term while protecting the patentee's interests.
Safeguards and Compliance Requirements
To ensure fair compensation for the patent holder, the court has implemented specific safeguards:
| Requirement | Details |
|---|---|
| Sales Records | Detailed and audited records of all sales |
| Reporting Period | Until patent expiry on May 2, 2026 |
| Filing Requirement | Periodic audited revenue statements to court and respondent |
| Purpose | Enable compensation if Squibb succeeds in infringement suit |
The Patent Dispute Background
The legal battle began when US-based E.R. Squibb & Sons LLC approached the Delhi High Court in 2024, alleging that Zydus Lifesciences was preparing to launch its biosimilar version before the May 2026 patent expiry. Squibb holds an Indian patent covering the monoclonal antibody nivolumab and claimed that the Ahmedabad-based company had developed a biosimilar called ZRC-3276, applied for regulatory approvals, and conducted clinical trials.
The dispute escalated after Squibb issued a cease-and-desist notice to Zydus in May 2022. Zydus responded that it was conducting research and clinical trials protected under the "Bolar exemption" of the Patents Act, which allows generic drugmakers to use patented drugs for research and development to prepare for regulatory filings.
Market Significance and Pricing
Nivolumab is a monoclonal antibody immunotherapy used to treat several cancers, including lung, head and neck cancers, particularly when chemotherapy fails or proves less effective. The drug's importance is underscored by India's rising cancer incidence rates.
| Treatment Category | Available Options |
|---|---|
| Nivolumab | Opdivo (Squibb), Zydus biosimilar |
| Similar Immunotherapies | Keytruda (Merck), Imfinzi (AstraZeneca) |
| Price Range | ₹21,500 to over ₹1,00,000 per vial |
While these immunotherapy treatments are extremely valuable for hard-to-treat cancers, affordability remains a significant concern for patients. The availability of biosimilar versions could potentially improve access to these life-saving medications.
The court's decision represents a careful balance between protecting patent rights and ensuring public access to essential cancer treatments. With a detailed written judgment still awaited, this ruling could have broader implications for the pharmaceutical industry's approach to biosimilar launches and patent disputes in India.






























