HC denies injunction to Merck against Glenmark

The high court here on Friday rejected Merck Sharp Dohme (MSD)’s petition for an interim injunction against the sale of Glenmark’s Zita and Zita-Met drugs.

Earlier this week, MSD had approached the court, alleging patent violation of two of its anti-diabetic drugs, Januvia and Janumet, by the Mumbai based Glenmark.

Though the court refused an injunction in the case, it kept the main petition of the US firm pending for filing of evidence, and other legal proceedings, before its joint registrar on July 16.

While Glenmark lauded the court’s decision and maintained Zita and Zita-Met didn’t infringe any Merck patent in the country, the American pharmaceuticals company said it was evaluating options to pursue the case further.

“MSD is extremely disappointed with the decision of denial of injunction by the high court against Glenmark for patent violation of our drugs Januvia and Janumet. MSD is considering all options, including an appeal of the decision,” said an MSD spokesperson.

MSD maintains its patent on Januvia and Janumet are “valid and enforceable”. It said it would explore “all legal options to vigorously defend these”.

In its plea, MSD had alleged Glenmark had violated its intellectual property right over its anti-diabetes medicines Januvia and Janumet, by bringing out its own drugs containing the same salts. Glenmark, however, said its products Zita and Zita-Met were branded generics and were launched after due diligence.

MSD’s Januvia and Janumet are ‘once daily’ prescription pills. According to trade sources, a strip of seven tablets of Januvia (50 mg and 100 mg) is priced at Rs 300. Glenmark’s drugs are about 30 per cent cheaper than Merck’s. Led by strong growth in the anti-diabetic market in India, Januvia and Janumet recorded sales of Rs 300 crore a year.

The court’s decision comes amid the raging debate on patent protection in India. On Monday, the Supreme Court had denied patent protection for Swiss multinational firm Novartis AG’s anti-cancer drug Glivec. While the move was lauded by patient groups and health activists from across the world, it led to concern among those advocating intellectual property rights. Today’s ruling may intensify the patents battle between multinational and intellectual property right activists on the one hand, and generic drug manufacturers, health activists and patient groups on the other.