https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222039 Interim injunction in a patent infringement suit was refused because the plaintiff did not adequately plead or establish, for interim relief, that the defendant's sitagliptin phosphate monohydrate product was only a trifling variation of the patented sitagliptin and lacked inventive significance. The court found the infringement case weakened by incomplete pleadings on efficacy, the role of phosphate, and equivalence. Relief was also declined because the plaintiffs had not candidly disclosed their failed and abandoned separate patent applications for sitagliptin phosphate, which contained admissions inconsistent with the suit. The defendant was therefore left unrestrained, subject to maintaining accounts of manufacture and sales pending trial. en-us Fri, 05 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222039 Interim injunction in a patent infringement suit was refused because the plaintiff did not adequately plead or establish, for interim relief, that the defendant's sitagliptin phosphate monohydrate product was only a trifling variation of the patented sitagliptin and lacked inventive significance. The court found the infringement case weakened by incomplete pleadings on efficacy, the role of phosphate, and equivalence. Relief was also declined because the plaintiffs had not candidly disclosed their failed and abandoned separate patent applications for sitagliptin phosphate, which contained admissions inconsistent with the suit. The defendant was therefore left unrestrained, subject to maintaining accounts of manufacture and sales pending trial. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 05 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=222039