IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  
  
  
  CS(OS) 1236/2013
  
  
  
  MERCK SHARP AND DOHME CORPORATION and ANR
  
  ..... Plaintiffs
  
  Through: Mr.Sudhir Chandra Agarwal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Pravin Anand,
  Mr.Dhruv Anand, Mr.Ashutosh Sreekumar and Ms.Udita, Advocates
  
  
  
  
versus
  
  
  
  APRICA PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED
  
  ..... Defendant
  
  Through:
  
  CORAM:
  
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
  
  
  
   O R D E R
  
   17.06.2013
  
  I.A. No.9969/2013 (for exemption)
  
  Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
  
  I.A. 9970/2013 (under Section 149 CPC)
  
  This is an application under Section 149 CPC seeking extension of
  time for deposit of the Court Fee of Rs.71000/-.
  
  The Court Fee of Rs.71000/- be deposited within a week.
  
  The application stands disposed of.
  
  I.A. No.9968/2013 (under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC)
  
  Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction for
  restraining the defendants from infringing the registered patent of the
  plaintiff in respect of Sitagliptin and its derivatives salt.
  
  The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs are the registered
  patent holder in India for the said molecule and its derivative salts.
  The learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the defendant
  is seeking to launch medicine with the identical salt which would be an
  infringement of the patent of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiffs
  is that the said molecule has been invented by plaintiff No.1who hold
  patent in over 102 countries for the said drug. Huge investment has been
  made in the invention of the said molecule and the sales in India alone
  and are in crores and in case the defendants are able to launch their
  product infringing the patent of the plaintiff irreparable loss and
  injury would be caused to the plaintiff.
  
  The plaintiff has established a prima facie case on merits and I am
  of the view that in case ex parte injunction is not granted to the
  plaintiff and defendant is able to launch the product, irreparable loss
  and injury would be caused to the plaintiff which cannot be compensated
  in terms of money. Balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff
  
  Issue notice to the defendants, returnable on 13th August, 2013.
  
  Till the next date of hearing, defendant, its directors, employees,
  officers, servants, agents are restrained from selling, distributing,
  advertising, exporting, offering for sale and in any other manner,
  directly or indirectly, dealing in any product that infringes the subject
  matter of the plaintiffs? Indian Patent No.209816. Provisions of Order
  39 Rule 3 be complied with within three days.
  
  Order dasti.
  
  
  
  
  
  CS(OS) 1236/2013
  
  Plaint be registered. Issue summons, returnable on 13th August,
  2013 on PF and RC within a week.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
  
  (VACATION JUDGE)
  
  JUNE 17, 2013/SV
  
  
  
  $ 31