Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iii) At pages 29 and 30, the patent specification discusses possibility of salts being made of the compounds of the invention (including that of Lorcaserin) with various acids, including hydrochloric acid. Further formations of solvate forms of the compounds of the present invention are also disclosed.

11. There exists a prima facie case of infringement of the suit patent, in favour of the plaintiff, especially in view of the following factors:

(i) The defendants are infringing their patent as Lorcaserin forms the major portion of LH and LHH cannot be made without using Lorcaserin. The defendants cannot manufacture their product without infringing the patents in the first place. Reliance is placed on MERCK v. Glenmark (2015) 223 DLT 454:

13. The plaintiffs shall suffer irreparably if the injunction is not granted. On the other hand, the defendants, as per their own admission, obtained manufacturing approval on 22nd October, 2018 and had not commenced the manufacturing of the drug at the time of filing of the present suit. An injunction against the defendants would not cause them any harm or injury as the infringing drug of the defendants are not yet in the market.

14. Reliance is placed on Merck v. Glenmark; 2015 (63) PTC 257 [Del][DB] in which the Division Bench of this Court held that:

"However, if a defendant is aware that there may be a possible challenge to its product, but still chooses to release the drug without first invoking revocation proceedings or attempting to negotiate, that is surely a relevant factor. The defendant‟s legal right to challenge the patent at any point in time is intact, but that does not mean that this factor cannot determine the interim arrangement. This is more so where Glenmark today argues that MSD ought to have disclosed international patent applications for SPM and Sitagliptin plus Metformin since they were the "same or substantially the same" as the suit patent under Section 8. That is Glenmark‟s stated position. Such being the state of things, it is surely reasonable for Glenmark to detect the possibility to challenge, when a US patent application for SPM filed by it was opposed by MSD. Despite this, Glenmark released the drug without initiating revocation proceedings under the Act, which is also a right vested in Glenmark that would have obviated the need for the interim arrangement we are today considering. This does not mean that Glenmark‟s right to question the validity of the patent in an infringement is affected, but the manner of challenge is a relevant factor against it at the interim stage. As Justice Jacob noted in both Smithkline Beecham cases (supra):

15. Reliance is also placed on the following paragraph of Merck v. Glenmark (supra) to demonstrate that the non-grant of an injunction in a strong case of infringement would lead to irreparable injury to the Plaintiff:

„This leads us to the second principle, which is whether the Court can overlook the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the patent system itself, so that a legitimate monopoly is not distorted. As this Court noted in Bayer Corporation and Ors. v. Cipla, Union of India (UOI) and Ors., 162 (2009) DLT 371 "[i]f, after a patentee, rewarded for his toil - in the form of protection against infringement - were to be informed that someone, not holding a patent, would be reaping the fruits of his efforts and investment, such a result would be destructive of the objectives underlying the Patents Act. The Court must be mindful - especially in a case where a strong case of infringement is established, as here - there is an interest in enforcing the Act. It may be argued that despite this no injunction should be granted since all damages from loss of sales can be compensated monetarily ultimately if the patentee prevails. This argument though appealing, is to be rejected because a closer look at the market forces reveal that the damage can in some cases be irreparable.