Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp & Anr v. Actis Generics Pvt Ltd

CS(COMM) 106/2021

The Plaintiffs, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., filed a suit seeking an injunction against Actis Generics Pvt Ltd for infringing Patent No. IN'816, which covers the compound Sitagliptin. The court examined the prima facie case and found that the Defendant was distributing and selling infringing Sitagliptin API without authorization.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 106/2021
Judge(s)
Sanjeev Narula

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Merck Sharp And Dohme Corp & Anr vs Actis Generics Pvt Ltd is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentCS(COMM) 422/2025

Luxottica Group S.P.A.vsAzad Optical Co. India & Ors.

The Delhi High Court issued a series of orders in favor of Luxottica Group S.P.A., which is seeking relief against counterfeiters selling 'RAY-BAN' products. The court granted the plaintiff exemptions from pre-litigation mediation and advance service, while also allowing the filing of additional documents and deficit court fees. Crucially, the court allowed an ad interim injunction, permitting a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure operations at the defendants' premises, including assistance from local police, to curb large-scale trademark infringement.

patentC.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 143/2022

The Regents of the University of CaliforniavsController General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr.

The Regents of the University of California filed an appeal challenging the rejection of their patent application, No.10336/DELNP/2013, titled "Blockade Of Inflammatory Proteases With Theta - Defensins." The initial rejections were based on objections under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Section 3 of the Patents Act, 1970. After subsequent amendments, the application was rejected again under S. 59 r/w S.15. This order sets out procedural directions for the parties to file replies and written submissions before the next hearing.

patentC.S.(Comm. Div.)No.102 of 2023

M/s.Carborundum Universal LimitedvsSelvam Hardwares

In a dispute over the use of the trademark 'SPEED,' M/s. Carborundum Universal Limited sought injunctions and damages against Selvam Hardwares for alleged infringement and passing off. While the parties reached an amicable settlement regarding the commercial aspects of the suit (injunctions, damages, accounts), the Madras High Court proceeded to adjudicate the plaintiff's request for a declaration that 'SPEED' is a well-known trademark. The court granted this specific declaratory relief, recognizing the mark's status in relation to diamond cutting and polishing tools.

patentWPA No.21879 of 2025

M/s Prominal Electric Vehicle Private LimitedvsThe State of West Bengal

Petitioners, e-rickshaw manufacturers, challenged the non-issuance of registration certificates due to concerns about patent holder's exclusive rights. The Court reviewed previous orders and directed the Registering Authority to proceed with registrations, provided the vehicles are distinct from those subject to a pending title suit.

patentW.P.(C) No.33077 of 2024

Alone TrustvsUnion of India and others

This Public Interest Litigation addressed the persistent issue of improper use of the State Emblem of India in various fields, particularly trade and commerce. The court recognized that despite existing legislation like the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, misuse continued due to a lack of public awareness. Consequently, the High Court issued comprehensive directions to the State Government of Odisha to establish a Task Force, create SOPs, and develop an online reporting portal to ensure responsible usage.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call