Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’ || SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment || SC: Later Sanction Requirement Won’t Invalidate Cognizance Taken When No Prior Bar Existed || SC: Documents Not Admitted by an Employee in an Enquiry Must be Proved Through Witnesses || Delhi HC: MHA Has Authority to Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings Against AGMUT IAS Officers || MP HC: Financial Hardship or Mere Allegations of Lawyer’s Negligence Cannot Excuse Delayed Appeal || Patna HC: Blanket Approach of Denying Public Employment to Individuals Named in an FIR is Unfair || Kerala HC: Repeated Possession of Even Small Quantities of Narcotic Drugs Can Invoke KAAPA || Calcutta HC: Employers May Deduct Penal Rent From Gratuity of Employees Refusing to Vacate Quarters || Calcutta High Court: ECI Not Singling Out Bengal, More Transfers in Other Poll-Bound States

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation & Anr. v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. - (High Court of Delhi) (07 Oct 2015)

Delhi High Court rules in favour of Merck for its diabetes drug

Intellectual Property Rights

The Delhi High Court restrained Glenmark from selling any drug containing Sitagliptin or its derivate. Sitagliptin is the active ingredient used in ‘Januvia’, Merck’s once-daily pill used to lower blood sugar levels in people with Type II diabetes. It had claimed that Glenmark had infringed its patent in the specific chemical. The court dismissed contentions that Glenmark’s product, ‘Zita’, was different from Merck’s product.

Relevant : Read the decision in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Tags : GLENMARK MERCK PATENT DIABETES

Share :