Court’s Decision
The Himachal Pradesh High Court confirmed the ex parte ad-interim injunction previously granted, restraining the defendants from manufacturing, marketing, selling, or offering for sale the product ‘Aladdin’ or any other product infringing Indian Patent No. 282092 held by the plaintiff. The Court found a prima facie case of infringement of Claims 11 and 12, held that the balance of convenience and irreparable harm were in favour of the plaintiff, and dismissed the defendants’ objections on territorial jurisdiction and regulatory defences under the Fertiliser Control Order (FCO).
Facts
The plaintiff, a research-driven agri-tech company, holds Indian Patent No. 282092 titled “Agricultural Composition,” granted on 30 March 2017 for 20 years, covering an advanced sulphur and zinc oxide composition with defined particle sizes to improve dispersion and plant absorption. The product was launched under ‘TECHNO Z’ in August 2018. The plaintiff discovered the defendants were manufacturing and selling ‘Aladdin’ fertiliser, allegedly infringing the patented composition, prompting the suit for a permanent injunction and an application for interim relief. An ex parte injunction was granted in July 2023 and challenged by the defendants, but the High Court was directed to decide the interim application on merits within four weeks.
Issues
- Whether ‘Aladdin’ prima facie infringes Claims 11 and 12 of the plaintiff’s patent.
- Whether the defendants raised a credible challenge to the validity of the patent.
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interim injunction.
- Whether the Himachal Pradesh High Court had territorial jurisdiction.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The plaintiff argued it held exclusive statutory rights under Section 48 of the Patents Act to prevent unauthorised third-party use. It highlighted that ‘Aladdin’ fell within the scope of Claims 11 and 12 regarding sulphur and zinc oxide percentages and particle size specifications, supported by an expert affidavit from Dr. Phool Kumar Patanjali, who concluded that ‘Aladdin’ matched the patent’s compositional features. The plaintiff asserted the defendants’ reliance on the FCO was misplaced, as regulatory compliance did not exempt them from patent infringement, and argued the sale in Shimla and the defendants’ manufacturing unit in Una established jurisdiction.
Respondent’s Arguments
The defendants contended that:
- The court lacked territorial jurisdiction since the product was not officially sold in Himachal, claiming the only purchase was a ‘trap purchase’ to create jurisdiction.
- The Essential Commodities Act (ECA) and the FCO overrode patent rights in public interest.
- The patented claims overlapped with standards fixed by the government before the patent was filed.
- There was no prima facie infringement, as the defendants used ‘bentonite,’ which was not specified in the patent.
- The patent lacked novelty, and the claims were obvious in light of prior art.
Analysis of the Law
The Court clarified:
- Patent rights confer an exclusive statutory monopoly enforceable by injunctions if infringed.
- Regulatory frameworks like the FCO do not override patent rights; compliance with the FCO does not constitute a licence under the Patents Act.
- Prima facie validity of a patent is presumed absent credible scientific evidence challenging its validity.
- The Delhi High Court’s rulings in Novartis AG and Strix Limited were relied upon to clarify the high threshold required for a defendant to establish a credible challenge to a patent at the interlocutory stage.
Precedent Analysis
- Novartis AG & Anr v. Cipla Ltd. (2015): Established that patents grant exclusive rights to patentees and that interim injunctions should be granted when infringement is apparent.
- Strix Limited v. Maharaja Appliances (2009): Held that to challenge a patent’s validity at the interim stage, defendants must present expert-backed scientific evidence, not mere assertions.
- Beecham Group Ltd. v. Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd. and Australian Broadcasting Corporation v. O’Neill: Affirmed the defendant’s onus to establish a credible challenge at the interlocutory stage.
- SNPC Machines Pvt Ltd vs Vishal Chaudhary (2024, Delhi HC): Clarified that minimal evidence of sales within jurisdiction suffices for territorial jurisdiction at the interim stage.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found:
- The plaintiff established a prima facie case of infringement, with chemical analysis showing ‘Aladdin’ fell within the scope of Claims 11 and 12.
- The defendants failed to establish a credible challenge to the patent’s validity, lacking scientific evidence.
- Territorial jurisdiction was established via sales in Shimla and the defendants’ operational presence in Una.
- The FCO did not override patent rights, and the plaintiff’s statutory rights must be protected to prevent irreparable harm.
Conclusion
The interim injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiff’s patent by manufacturing, selling, or offering ‘Aladdin’ was confirmed, protecting the plaintiff’s intellectual property rights during the pendency of the suit.
Implications
- Reinforces that patent rights are enforceable against infringing products despite regulatory compliance under the FCO.
- Establishes that trap purchases to establish jurisdiction can be valid when sales occur within the court’s territory.
- Highlights the high threshold for defendants to challenge patents at the interim stage, requiring expert-backed scientific evidence.
Referred Cases and Their Reference Here
- Novartis AG & Anr v. Cipla Ltd.: Affirmed patentee’s right to interim injunctions to protect statutory monopolies.
- Strix Limited v. Maharaja Appliances: Clarified the threshold for credible challenge at the interim stage.
- Beecham Group Ltd. v. Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd. and Australian Broadcasting Corporation v. O’Neill: Established onus on defendants to prove patent invalidity.
- SNPC Machines Pvt Ltd vs Vishal Chaudhary: Clarified principles for territorial jurisdiction in commercial disputes.
Brief FAQs
1. Does regulatory approval under the FCO exempt a party from patent infringement liability?
No, the FCO governs quality standards but does not override the proprietary rights under the Patents Act.
2. What is needed to challenge a patent’s validity at the interim stage?
Defendants must present credible scientific evidence with expert analysis, not mere assertions.
3. Can sales to establish jurisdiction be considered by the court in patent disputes?
Yes, even a single sale within the court’s jurisdiction can suffice to establish territorial jurisdiction for an injunction.
