Glenmark作為一家公司滿足於這樣一個事實，即它一直在使用西格列汀作為一種叫做磷酸鹽的鹽的添加劑或混合物這種鹽以“西格列汀磷酸鹽”的形式存在這使得公司在物理和化學性質上有了足夠的區別。英國高等法院(High Court)禁止格倫馬克(Glenmark)標識和銷售其自己版本的爭議藥物，令夏普和多姆(Sharp & Dohme)通過這樣的禁令表達了自己的喜悅。不過，Glenmark方面辯稱，這一行動並不適用於該公司的任何產品。因此，該公司(Glenmark)正在就其將采取的下一步行動以及應該采取的適當行動征求最佳法律意見。
上訴人的律師爭辯說，西格列汀是其類化合物中第一個具有抑制酶“Di Peptidyl Peptidase-IV”或DPP-IV能力的藥物。律師因此認為客戶的專利訴訟是侵犯以來Siatgliptin覆蓋和其他鹽是可以接受這種觀點,最終導致了使用、制造、進口在印度,和提供銷售的重要Sitagliptin和任何相關的鹽或其他侵權行為,達到侵權的“專利”。此外，上訴人辯稱，通過制造、銷售、要約銷售、廣告和銷售由“Zita”和“西格列汀磷酸酯一水化物”品牌下的“西格列汀磷酸酯一水化物”的重要化學成分組成的藥物組合物，明顯侵犯了訴訟專利及其主張。
答辯人的律師說，他們強烈認為，訴訟專利中有明顯的內容，因此它不涉及任何形式的發明步驟。也有人認為，“訴訟專利:確實是由之前的歐洲WO/0q/3494和1406622 (Basant, 2011，第120頁)預期的。”被告的律師進一步爭辯說，索賠要求通常超出大多數規範中有限的披露範圍，因此索賠是不可接受的和過分的。它還指出，“專利壟斷”過於廣泛，使其無法運作，因為它可能由大約49億種化合物組成，因此這種要求永遠不應得到維持和支持。答辯人認為，他們的論點是，這項訴訟的全部或全部說明沒有公平和有效地描述發明的性質以及將要執行的方法。他們認為這是由於專利並沒有以任何方式給出關於制備“西格列汀無堿”甚至“磷酸西格列汀一水化物”的處方，而只是鹽酸鹽。
Glenmark as a company contented the fact that indeed, it had been using Sitagliptin in addition or combination with a salt known as phosphate which was in the form of “Sitagliptin phosphate” which had actually granted the company with sufficient distinction in both its physical and chemical properties. The restraining of Glenmark by the High Court from the marking and marketing of its own versions of the drugs in dispute made Sharp & Dohme to express happiness with such an injunction. However, Glenmark on its side argued that the action was not in any way applicable for any of the company’s products. The Company (Glenmark) is thus seeking the best legal advice on the next steps it will take as well as the appropriate action that should be taken.
The counsel for the Appellant argued that the drug, Sitagliptin was the first in its class of compounds which had the ability of inhibiting enzyme “Di Peptidyl Peptidase-IV) or DPP-IV. The Counsel thus argued that the suit patent of the client was infringed since Siatgliptin and any other salts which were acceptable were covered by such claims which eventually resulted in the using, making, importing in India, and offering for sale of the vital Sitagliptin and any of its associated salt or any other infringement which that amounted to infringement of the “suit patent”. Further, the appellant argued that through manufacturing, the sale, offering to sale, advertising, and selling pharmaceutical compositions comprising of the vital chemical of “Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate” under the brand “Zita” and “Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate” clearly infringed on the suit patents as well as its claims.
According to the counsel for the respondent, it was strongly argued that there was obviousness in the suit patent and therefore it does not involve any form of inventive steps above and over the disclosures. It was also argued that the “suit patent: was indeed anticipated by prior European WO/0q/3494 and 1406622 (Basant, 2011, p. 120). The respondent’s counsel further argued that claim usually goes beyond limited disclosures in most specifications and therefore the claim was impermissible and overboard. It also noted that the “patent monopoly” was too broad for it to become workable since it possibly comprised of approximately 4.9 billion compounds and thus such claims should never be sustained and upheld. According to the respondent, they held an argument that the complete or total specification of this suit did not fairly and effectively describe the nature of invention as well as the method which was to be performed. They attributed this to the fact that the patent did not in any manner give a prescription regarding the preparation of the “Sitagliptin Free Base” or even the “Sitagliptin Phosphate Monohydrate”, but only the Hydrochloride Salt.