Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation & Anr. v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Whether an interim injunction should have been refused to the holder of a patent on a diabetes compound whose salt form a generic maker was selling.
What the court held
The Division Bench reversed the refusal and restrained the generic maker pending trial. It took the view that a patent claiming a compound together with its pharmaceutically acceptable salts is not sidestepped by marketing a salt of that compound, so a prima facie case of infringement was shown. The challenge to validity was not thought strong enough at that stage to displace a granted patent. The balance of convenience was weighed on the footing that loss to the patentee would be difficult to measure later.
Why it matters to a reader of this provision
Interim injunctions settle the practical outcome of most Indian pharmaceutical patent disputes, and this is one of the most cited appellate treatments of when one should issue. It deals with how far a compound claim reaches over salt forms, and with how a court weighs a validity challenge against a granted patent before trial. Those are the first questions readers of sections 48 and 108 face.
Provisions this judgment interprets
Open a provision for the plain-language explanation, the worked example and the forms and deadlines it touches.
Does this judgment affect your matter?
Whether a decision helps or hurts depends entirely on your facts and your claims. A patent professional can tell you which.