Company Profile: Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Company overview. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited (commonly "Glenmark") is a publicly traded, research-led pharmaceutical company headquartered in Mumbai, India, and listed on Indian exchanges (NSE: GLENMARK). Founded in 1977 by Gracias Saldanha, it employs roughly 13,000–17,000 people globally and reported consolidated revenue of about ₹13,400 crore (≈US$1.5–1.6 billion) for FY2025. Its U.S. operations run through subsidiary Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA, headquartered in New Jersey.
Products / services / operations. Glenmark develops, manufactures, and markets branded formulations, generic drugs, and OTC products, with a stated focus on respiratory, dermatology, and oncology. It sells across more than 80 countries, operates multiple manufacturing sites, and pursues innovative biologics through subsidiary Ichnos Glenmark Innovation (IGI). In the U.S., its generics business operates through Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) to the FDA.
Patent-litigation posture. Glenmark is an operating company and appears in our database only as a defendant (1 case, 0 as plaintiff) — a pattern typical of a generic-drug maker defending against brand-owner suits, not an NPE. The tracked case, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. HEC Pharm Co., Ltd. et al. (D. Del., filed 2020-01-28), is a Hatch-Waxman ANDA infringement action under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2). It was filed in the District of Delaware, the standard venue for ANDA litigation (not a plaintiff-friendly outlier like EDTX), alongside related consolidated fingolimod cases.
Notable cases or context. The Novartis action concerns ANDA No. 207985 for generic fingolimod 0.5 mg capsules (a version of Novartis's Gilenya®, used for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis), asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 9,187,405 and 10,543,179. Glenmark was one of many generic defendants in this consolidated Delaware litigation; in related proceedings, the Federal Circuit ultimately held the '405 patent invalid for inadequate written description of a "no-loading-dose" claim limitation. No NPE funding or acquired-portfolio dynamics are involved — this is a routine brand-vs.-generic patent dispute.
Sources: Mergr, FT/Barrons market data, Tracxn, SignalHire, CourtListener, drugpatentwatch.com, and Federal Circuit opinion in Novartis v. Accord Healthcare (21-1070).