GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. v. BR Agrotech Limited and Anr
The case of GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. v. BR Agrotech Limited and Anr represents a significant judicial pronouncement in the realm of Indian patent law, particularly concerning the enforcement of patent rights against secondary actors in the supply chain, such as marketers or sellers.
The plaintiff, GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd., a prominent agrochemical company, initiated legal action against BR Agrotech Limited (Defendant No.1) and another entity (Defendant No.2) for infringing its Indian Patent No. 394568, which pertains to a synergistic suspo-emulsion formulation comprising Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron.
The case, adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi, culminated in a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, highlighting the court’s approach to patent infringement claims based on clear admissions by the defendant.
Factual Background
GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd., registered under the Companies Act, 1956, with its office in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of agrochemicals. It has invested significantly in R&D, resulting in over 70 patents, including Indian Patent No. 394568 (IN’568), granted in 2022. This patent covers a synergistic suspo-emulsion formulation comprising:
- Pyriproxyfen (1–15%)
- Diafenthiuron (25–55%)
- Specific excipients
The application was filed in 2014 and survived seven pre-grant oppositions under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970.
The plaintiff commercialized the invention as SLR 525 (5% Pyriproxyfen + 25% Diafenthiuron), approved under Section 9(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, in August 2018. In 2022–23, Defendant No.2 was found selling Roxyfin with an identical composition, manufactured by Defendant No.1 under a CIBRC license (CIR-172356-2020) under Section 9(4). The plaintiff alleged that this infringed IN’568, violating its exclusive rights.
Procedural Background
The plaintiff filed suit CS(COMM) 82/2023 seeking a permanent injunction and ancillary reliefs. Key procedural steps include:
- February 16, 2023: Ad interim injunction granted against both defendants.
- March 3, 2023: Suit decreed against Defendant No.1 upon settlement and admission of manufacturing Roxyfin.
- July 4, 2024: Interim injunction made absolute against Defendant No.2.
- July 11, 2025: Court reserved judgment.
- July 25, 2025: Judgment pronounced against Defendant No.2.
Defendant No.2 contended it was merely a marketer without intent to infringe, relying on Defendant No.1’s license.
Core Dispute
Central issues included:
- Whether Defendant No.2’s sale of Roxyfin constituted infringement under Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970.
- Whether Defendant No.2’s admissions warranted judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
The plaintiff argued that the chemical composition of Roxyfin matched SLR 525, infringing IN’568, and that Defendant No.2’s affidavits contained clear admissions. Defendant No.2 argued it was not the manufacturer and relied on another’s license.
Discussion on Judgments
Relevant case law cited:
- Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India – Courts can pass judgments on clear admissions.
- Delhi Jal Board v. Surendranath – Admissions can render trial unnecessary.
- National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Ashval Vadera – Admissions can be inferred even from vague denials.
- Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Sanjeev Gupta – Selling alone is sufficient for infringement under Section 48.
The court found Defendant No.2’s affidavits (May 2 and April 13, 2023) admitted to sales, satisfying the requirements under Order XII Rule 6.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
The judge held that:
- Roxyfin’s composition (5% + 25%) falls within IN’568’s claims.
- Section 48 confers exclusive rights, and “selling” alone triggers liability.
- Relying on a CIBRC license is not a valid defense against patent rights.
- Defendant No.2’s admissions were unambiguous and satisfied Order XII Rule 6.
- Bona fide marketing intent is irrelevant under strict liability of Section 48.
Final Decision
On July 25, 2025, the High Court of Delhi:
- Allowed the application under Order XII Rule 6.
- Granted a permanent injunction restraining Defendant No.2 from infringing IN’568.
- Ordered Defendant No.2 to pay Rs. 50,00,000 in damages within six weeks, with 6% interest thereafter.
- Imposed Rs. 2,00,000 as costs payable to the Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund.
- Directed that a decree sheet be drawn and all pending applications be disposed of.
Law Settled in This Case
This judgment reinforces the following principles:
- Under Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970, even selling alone without consent amounts to infringement.
- The disjunctive “or” means each listed act (making, using, selling, etc.) independently triggers liability.
- Regulatory licenses (e.g., Insecticides Act) do not override patent rights.
- Order XII Rule 6 CPC enables expeditious justice based on clear admissions.
- Courts must prevent prolonged litigation that undermines exclusive patent rights.
Case Details
- Case Title: GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. v. BR Agrotech Limited and Anr
- Date of Order: July 25, 2025
- Case Number: CS(COMM) 82/2023
- Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:6055:
- Court: High Court of Delhi
- Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor – Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539
