Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Sun Pharma Global FZE et al.

I'll research this case across dockets, court opinions, and industry coverage.

Now let me dig into the docket, the parallel IPRs, and the appellate outcome.

I have substantial material. Let me confirm the Delaware termination and the Sun-specific docket details.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches.

Let me dig deeper into the MDL and docket specifics.

Let me research the IPR outcomes and the Sun Pharma-specific settlement.

Key Legal Developments — Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Sun Pharma Global FZE et al., No. 1:19-cv-00319-RGA (D. Del.)

Important framing note: This case was never litigated to trial on its own. It was one of fourteen parallel Hatch‑Waxman actions that became In re Sitagliptin Phosphate ('708 & '921) Patent Litigation, MDL No. 2902 (D. Del.), before Judge Richard G. Andrews. Most substantive developments below are MDL‑wide events that governed this case. Where I could not verify a Sun‑specific docket entry, I say so.

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2019-02-13 — Merck filed the complaint asserting U.S. Patent No. 7,326,708 against Sun Pharma Global FZE and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. The '708 patent (the "salt/polymorph" patent, expiring 2026-11-24, with pediatric exclusivity to 2027-05-24) covers the crystalline monohydrate of sitagliptin dihydrogenphosphate and is Orange‑Book listed for JANUVIA, JANUMET, JANUMET XR, JUVISYNC, and STEGLUJAN. The Sun case was docketed as 19‑319 and (per Robbins Kaplan's spring‑2019 ANDA survey) was tied to the JUVISYNC product line. (https://www.robinskaplan.com/printpilot-publication-resources-legal-updates-generically-speaking-hatch-waxman-bulletin-2019-generically-speaking-spring-2019-new-anda-cases2.pdf)
• Answers/counterclaims: Defendants across the MDL filed answers asserting invalidity (anticipation/obviousness of at least claim 1) and non‑infringement, plus declaratory‑judgment counterclaims of invalidity/non‑infringement. The Alvogen answer in the companion case (19‑cv‑00310) is a representative example of the standard answer/counterclaim structure used across the MDL (invalidity under §§ 101/102/103/112 and double‑patenting; § 271(a),(b),(c) non‑infringement; § 271(e) non‑infringement). (https://paragraphfour.com/uploads/cases19/dedc19cv0310A.pdf) I could not verify a Sun‑specific answer/counterclaim docket entry.

2. MDL consolidation (pre‑trial posture)

• 2019-07-19 — The JPML granted Merck's § 1407 motion and created MDL No. 2902, transferring the one non‑Delaware action (Mylan, N.D. W. Va.) to the District of Delaware before Judge Andrews. The Panel cited the common obviousness/claim‑construction questions across the 14 actions asserting the '708 and '921 patents and the need for "swift progress." (https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2902-Initial_Transfer-07-19.pdf)
• 2019-08-08 — MDL docket (1:19‑md‑02902‑RGA) opened. Case 19‑319 was consolidated into it for pretrial purposes. (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1537482](/patent/1537482)/download-documents)

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• 2020-08-18 — Markman hearing held in the MDL.
• 2020-11-17 — Judge Andrews issued the claim‑construction opinion (D.I. 135 in C.A. 19‑311), construing disputed terms of both the '708 and '921 patents, including "the salt of claim 1 [or 2]"; "crystalline monohydrate [of the dihydrogen phosphate salt of sitagliptin]"; the XRPD "characteristic absorption bands" term; and "crystallizing the dihydrogenphosphate salt … at 25 °C." Notably, the Court observed that Mylan did not join any of the defendants' proposed constructions due to the pending IPR on the '708 patent, and that several defendants had already exited via consent judgments. Sun was represented at the Markman stage by Winston & Strawn (Claire Fundakowski, argued; Charles B. Klein) and Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor (Anne Shea Gaza). (https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/delaware/dedce/1:2019cv00311/[67784/135](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=67784-0135)/0.pdf)

4. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect on the litigation

This is the most consequential thread for the '708 patent:

• IPR2020‑00040 (Mylan v. Merck) — Petition filed 2019-10-30; instituted 2020-05-12 on claims 1–4, 17, 19, 21–23. Final Written Decision entered 2021-05-07 (Paper 14/termination document dated May 10, 2021), holding no challenged claims unpatentable (no anticipation or obviousness over "Edmondson" (WO 2003/004498 / U.S. 6,699,871), alone or with Brittain and Bastin). (https://ocr.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2020-01072/...Termination_Decision_Document.pdf)
• IPR2020‑01072 (Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Merck) — filed 2020-06-12; instituted and joined to the Mylan IPR on 2020-09-01 under § 315(c). Sun's IPR was terminated 2021-05-07/05-10 after the parties settled. (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2020-00040/.../Order-46-IPR2020_01072_Decision...)
• Other joined/related IPRs on the '708 patent: Teva IPR2020‑01045, DRL IPR2020‑01060 (joined to Mylan), and DRL IPR2020‑01660.
• 2022-09-29 — The Federal Circuit affirmed the Mylan FWD in Mylan Pharms., Inc. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., No. 21‑2121, 2022 WL 4541687 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 29, 2022) (Lourie, J., joined by Reyna and Stoll). The court held that 957 putative salts from the prior‑art genus were too many to "at once envisage" under In re Petering, and that the Board's no‑anticipation/no‑obviousness findings (including Merck's antedation and the § 103(c) common‑ownership exception) were supported by substantial evidence. This affirmance effectively foreclosed the validity defense platform the Sun (and other) defendants were relying on.

5. Settlement, dismissal, and final disposition

• 2021-05-07/05-10 — Sun's IPR2020‑01072 terminated following settlement.
• 2021-09-30 — Case 1:19‑cv‑00319‑RGA was terminated (Unified Patents reports the docket's termination date as 2021-09-30; status "closed"). (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1:19-cv-00319)
• Context: Merck's SEC filings state that "[p]rior to the beginning of the scheduled October 2021 trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on invalidity issues, the Company settled with all defendants scheduled to participate in that trial." Because Sun was among the Delaware MDL defendants (and had already settled its IPR in May 2021), the 2021‑09‑30 termination of 19‑319 is consistent with that global Delaware settlement wave. (Merck 10‑Q disclosure; https://www.merck.com/.../MRK-03.31.2026-10Q-FINAL.pdf)
• Consent-judgment model in the MDL: Companion dispositions confirm the settlement structure (injunction + dismissal with prejudice, no fees/costs). Example: the 2021-10-05 Dr. Reddy's consent judgment in the MDL (C.A. 20‑847/21‑1033), which recites the '708 patent as the "Licensed Patent," enjoins infringement by the DRL ANDA products, and dismisses all claims, counterclaims, and defenses with prejudice. (https://paragraphfour.com/.../dedc20cv0847CJ.pdf) I did not locate a separate published consent‑judgment PDF specific to the Sun case.
• Net outcome: Merck settled with 26 generic companies; under the settlements generic JANUVIA/JANUMET may enter in May 2026 and generic JANUMET XR in July 2026 (or earlier under certain circumstances). The '708 patent's ~2026–2027 term thus dictated the launch dates.

6. Post‑settlement / related developments

• Mylan/Viatris (N.D. W. Va., C.A. 1:19‑cv‑00101‑IMK): The only '708 merits case to reach judgment — bench trial December 2021, closing arguments April 2022, Memorandum Opinion and Order Following Bench Trial (D.I. 193/204, filed 2022-10-26) upholding all asserted claims (claim 3 of '708; claim 1 of '921) and rejecting OTDP and § 112 defenses; Amended Final Judgment entered under § 271(e)(4)(A) barring approval before expiration. Mylan (Viatris) appealed to the Federal Circuit, then settled and voluntarily dismissed the appeal after entry of the amended final judgment. (http://ocr.docketalarm.com/cases/West_Virginia_Northern_District_Court/1--19-cv-00101/...;/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wvnd.46385/gov.uscourts.wvnd.46385.197.0.pdf)
• Related later suits (not part of 19‑319): Merck's March 2021 Zydus suit (separate 2027 salt/polymorph patent, settled December 2022), and a February 24, 2025 New Jersey ANDA action against Sun over fidaxomicin/DIFICID® patents — distinct patents, not the '708 patent, and not related to this case's Sun sitagliptin dispute. (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-jersey/njdce/2:2025cv

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

I found the complaint signature block. Let me verify counsel of record across the docket and check for any later changes.

Let me verify the counsel entries in the case docket and check the MDL and any later changes.

I'll research the counsel of record for the defendants in this case. Let me start with docket and firm-level searches.

Let me dig into the defendant's specific counsel of record and the docket entries for this case.

I'm finding the defendant's representation. Let me confirm the specific counsel entries in the 19-cv-319 docket and the MDL, and identify the full team.

I hit the tool-call limit before I could pull the raw PACER docket sheet directly, so the following is built from what I could verify through search results (the Unified Patents litigation portal's docket mirror, RECAP/CourtListener filings, and PTAB exhibits). Where a point rests on a secondary source or an ambiguous exhibit, I flag it.

Counsel of Record for the Defendants — Sun Pharma Global FZE & Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.

Important framing: This case (1:19-cv-00319-RGA) was folded into the consolidated In re Sitagliptin Phosphate ('708 & '921) Patent Litigation, 1:19-md-02902-RGA (D. Del., Judge Andrews). Sun appeared in both the member case and the MDL, and docket entries are cross-listed (e.g., "D.I. 117 in 19-cv-319-RGA; D.I. 282 in 19-md-2902-RGA"). Counsel entries below are drawn from those cross-listed filings.

---

1. Local counsel (Delaware) — Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE

Note: RLF's appearance as Delaware counsel for Sun is the most solidly corroborated piece of this answer — it is confirmed by Sun-signed filings in 19-cv-319 itself and by the MDL docket.

2. Lead / outside trial counsel (pro hac vice) — Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL

The strongest single anchor for Sun's outside counsel: the motion for pro hac vice admission of Jason Z. Pesick, filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. in this very case — D.I. 117 in 19-cv-319-RGA (= D.I. 282 in 19-md-02902-RGA), granted by Judge Andrews. Jason Pesick is a Winston & Strawn patent litigator.

Winston & Strawn's Sun team, listed as "Of Counsel" in companion D. Del. filings:

• George C. Lombardi — lead trial counsel; long-time Winston pharma/Hatch-Waxman litigator (frequent counsel for generic manufacturers in ANDA cases).
• Jason Z. Pesick — pro hac vice in this case (above).
• Michael K. Nutter
• Samantha M. Lerner
• Paul J. Sauerteig

(Caveat: the "Of Counsel: George C. Lombardi / Samantha Lerner / Jason Z. Pesick / Paul J. Sauerteig — Winston & Strawn, 35 W. Wacker Dr., Chicago" caption appears in RECAP documents gov.uscourts.ded.73878.115.0_1.pdf and ...159.0.pdf (dated Aug. 12, 2021). I could not fully confirm that ded.73878 is the sitagliptin MDL rather than a separate D. Del. matter, so treat the composition of the Winston team as well-supported but the exact case attribution of those two captions as not fully verified. Pesick's pro hac vice in 19-cv-319 is the definitive link.)

3. Possibly also appearing — Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh & Lindquist (Minneapolis, MN)

A notice-of-service exhibit (IPR2019-00865, Ex. 2041; PATB docket) lists Samuel T. Lockner, Shelleaha L. Jonas, Todd S. Werner, and Caroline L. Marsili of Carlson Caspers as "Attorneys for Defendants Sun Pharma Global FZE and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd." alongside RLF. However, that exhibit appears to come from a differently-captioned, multi-defendant matter ("Plaintiffs' First Supplemental Responses to Defendants First Set of Joint Interrogatories"), which doesn't match the single-plaintiff sitagliptin case. I therefore cannot confirm Carlson Caspers appeared in 19-cv-319 specifically. Carlson Caspers is, separately, a known Sun Pharma firm in other ANDA matters (e.g., Sun Pharma v. related NJ/Texas cases). Flag as unverified for this case.

4. In-house counsel

Not identified. I found no Sun in-house attorney named on the 19-cv-319 docket in the sources retrieved. I won't speculate as to names.

---

Plaintiff's team (for contrast / completeness)

Both were confirmed from the complaint caption and the MDL docket:

• Williams & Connolly LLP (Washington, DC): Bruce R. Genderson, Jessamyn S. Berniker, Stanley E. Fisher, Shaun P. Mahaffy, Anthony H. Sheh, Jingyuan Luo (pro hac vice).