* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 15.01.2026 Judgment delivered on: 23.01.2026 CS(COMM) 1075/2018, I.A. 10890/2018, I.A. 15200/2018, I.A.

11751/2022 & I.A. 188/2025 MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. & ANR. .....Plaintiffs versus RANVIR KUMAR BINDESHWARI SINGH & ORS. ....Defendants Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Plaintiffs : Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Tusha Malhotra and Ms.

Sugandha Yadav, Advocates.

For the Defendants : None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

J U D G M E N T

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

1. The present suit has been filed seeking a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringement of registered Patent no.209816, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up and costs.

2. The facts as stated in the plaint are that Plaintiff no.1, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., is the owner of the Indian Patent No.209816 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit patent’) that covers, amongst other molecules, a molecule having an International Non-Proprietary Name (INN), SITAGLIPTIN, which has the following chemical structure:-

3. It is stated that the said molecule was invented by the plaintiff no.1, which holds patents for the same in 102 countries worldwide and commercially sells the same in India under the brand/commercial name JANUVIA. It is also stated in the plaint that the plaintiff no.1 manufactures another product which is a combination of SITAGLIPTIN and another drug known as METFORMIN HCI which falls under the protection afforded to the suit patent. It is stated that the said combination is sold by plaintiff no.1 under the brand/commercial name JANUMET. The plaintiff also sells its invention under the brand name ISTAVEL and ISTAMET.

4. The plaintiff no.2, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., is the licensee of plaintiff no.1 for marketing, distributing and selling SITAGLIPTIN and SITAGLIPTIN & METAFORMIN combination covered and claimed under the suit patent in India under the trademarks ISTAVEL® and ISTAMET and also the licensee of the plaintiff no.1 for the suit patent.

5. As per the plaint, the cause of action arose towards the end of May, 2018 when the plaintiffs learnt about the defendants’ listing of infringing product ‘SEPAMET-XR’ on www.1mg.com. It is claimed that on investigation, the advertisements of the defendants’ product containing the suit patent were also found on several other third party websites such as www.mednear.com and www.mims.com.

6. It is stated that the investigator of the plaintiffs had placed orders for the defendants’ product on various websites, however, the order was cancelled on every occasion. The investigator had also contacted the number available on the defendants’ website and spoke to Mr. Pravin, who revealed that 90% of the defendant no.5’s products are exported and confirmed that SITAGLIPTIN is only exported and is not available in the domestic market. It is stated that thereafter, the plaintiffs learnt about the defendants’ commercial export of the infringing product SEPAMET-XR through data received from Seair Exim Solutions. Aggrieved thereof, the present suit was filed in August, 2018.

7. This Court had granted ex-parte ad interim injunction vide order dated 16.08.2018 in favour of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendants from manufacturing, using, selling, distributing, advertising, exporting, offering for sale and in any other manner, directly or indirectly, dealing in any product that infringes the suit patent of the plaintiffs or any of the claims thereof, including SITAGLIPTIN or any of its pharmaceutically acceptable salts such as Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate as well as any Sitagliptin containing products.

8. On 01.10.2018, the defendants entered appearance and were directed to file their Written Statement. On 09.01.2019, defendant nos.5 & 6 moved an application bearing I.A. No.143/2019 seeking condonation of delay in filing their Written Statement, which was allowed subject to costs of Rs.5000/-.

9. The defense set up by the de