Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. filed a suit in August 2018 against Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh and others for infringing their Indian Patent No. 209816 covering Sitagliptin by advertising and exporting the infringing product SEPAMET-XR containing Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate, seeking permanent injunction, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up, and costs.
The court granted ex-parte interim injunction in August 2018. Defendants filed written statement denying infringement, export for domestic market, and court's jurisdiction but later ceased appearing, leading to ex-parte proceedings in March 2024 after substituted service. The patent lapsed in July 2022, rendering injunction infructuous, so plaintiffs restricted relief to damages and costs, filing unrebutted affidavit evidence.
The court, accepting plaintiffs' evidence, calculated compensatory damages based on defendants' estimated export profits over 12 months at Rs.49,44,450 with 25% margin, awarded exemplary damages of Rs.10 lakhs for willful post-injunction infringement posing public health risks, and granted actual costs of Rs.21,67,074, holding defendants jointly liable.
- In patent infringement suits proceeded ex-parte, unrebutted affidavit evidence of plaintiffs is sufficient to establish entitlement to compensatory damages calculated on the basis of infringer's estimated profits from export data with a reasonable profit margin: Para 25.
- Exemplary damages may be awarded in patent infringement cases where defendants willfully disobey court injunction orders and continue infringing activities, considering public health risks from sub-standard medicines: Para 28.
- Actual legal costs, including court fees and expenses supported by affidavit, are recoverable in commercial patent suits under the Commercial Courts Act, especially when unrebutted: Para 29.
Case Title: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Vs Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh :23.01.2026:CS(COMM) 1075/2018:2026:DHC:571:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
