根据Glenmark的请求，德里法院允许它使用零售商和分销商处理公司的库存(Chatterjee, Kubo & Pingali, 2015，第160页)。根据现有的证据，有人断言，格伦马克的库存据知价值约为8500亿卢比，预定在11月底之前用完。
In one of the latest patent infringement case, it is asserted that Delhi HC, a drug manufacturing company has actually barred another drug manufacturing company known as Glenmark from not only selling its two major anti-diabetes drugs called Zita-Met and Zita, but it has also barred it from either exporting or marketing the drugs. A Delhi High Court barred Glenmark Pharmaceutical Limited, a Mumbai based company, from selling distributing, exporting or even marketing its two major anti-diabetes drugs Zita-Met and Zita based on the fact that the company had indeed infringed the patent that belonged to Dohme Corp and Merck Sharp, a Pharmaceutical Company based in the United States.
Following the request from Glenmark, the Delhi Court granted it permission to dispose the company’s inventory using both retailers as well as distributors (Chatterjee, Kubo & Pingali, 2015, p. 160). Based on the available evidence, it was asserted that the inventory of Glenmark was known to be approximately worth a total of Rs.85 Crore, and it was indeed scheduled to run out by the end of November.
在133页的判决书中，法官A。据指出K . Pathak曾说过，这项裁决是通过比较属于原告和被告产品的产品说明书得出的。这是为了确定这些产品是否实际上是相同的，以及它们是否由类似的化合物组成，称为“磷酸西格列汀一水化物”。格伦马克的侵权行为最终被帕萨克法官判定为侵权行为帕萨克法官发布了一系列命令通过某种程度的永久禁令限制被告不仅制造和使用相关产品，还包括广告，分销，交易，出售，或以任何形式并与其他药物联合出口磷酸一水合物或任何其他西格列汀盐，以侵犯原告的专利(Subramaniam & Daivasigamani, 2014, p.187)。
The patent dispute between the two companies is known to have arose in the year 2013 when the Pharmaceutical Company Merck went to the Delhi based High Court against the other Company Glenmark through making allegations that there had been patent infringement on its products. Earlier on, a refusal of passing the injunction order had been granted by Justice Rajiv Endlaw but it was later on reversed or reverted by the Division Bench. Based on Merck, the company alleged that the “Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate”, which is the major component that is used by Glenmark to manufacture the drugs, could not actually have been made without necessarily manufacturing the “active molecule Sitagliptin” which was not only invented, but which was also patented by the United States drug maker.
In the 133 page verdict, Justice A.K Pathak was noted as having said that the ruling emerged from comparing the product inserts belonging to the product of the plaintiff and of the defendant. This was aimed at ascertaining whether the products were actually the same and whether they comprised of a similar compound called “Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate”. A clear sense of infringement carried out by Glenmark was eventually made by Justice Pathak when he put across orders which restrained the defendant through a degree of permanent injunction from not only making and using the products in question, but also from advertising, distributing, dealing, offering for sale, or even exporting the phosphate monohydrate or even any other Sitagliptin salt in any form and in combination with other drugs with an aim of infringing on the plaintiff’s patent (Subramaniam & Daivasigamani, 2014, p.187).