Sandeep Rathod has published a short but informative paper titled Interim Injunctions and Working of Patents: A Short Note from India, 16 J. Generic Meds. 72 (2020). Here is a link to the paper (behind a paywall), and here is the abstract:
The article looks at how jurisprudence has evolved in Indian courts on granting or refusing injunctions to patentees, especially when such patentees are not working/commercially using their patented product in India. The author also presents his views on the recent Eisai v. Dr Reddys case.
The paper discusses, among other cases, Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH v. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. and Bayer v. BDR (previously noted on this blog here, here, and here), and the November 2019 decision of Delhi High Court in Merck Sharp & Dohme Co. v. Gupta, CS(COMM) 823/2018 (Delhi High Ct. Nov. 18, 2019), which granted an interim injunction against the domestic manufacture for export of an anti-diabetes drug. I found this particular decision of interest in connection with a paper I'm writing on extraterritorial damages, because the court specifically rejected the argument granting the injunction amounted to the extraterritorial application of Indian patent law.