Case Summary
This case involves a significant dispute in the field of intellectual property law, particularly relating to patent infringement in the agricultural sector. The litigation centers on Indian Patent No. 282092, concerning a novel agricultural composition. The plaintiff, SML Limited, a research-driven agrochemical company, approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh alleging patent infringement by the defendants, Mohan & Company and Safex Chemicals India Ltd., over a competing fertilizer product branded as “Aladdin.” The plaintiff sought interim injunctive relief pending final adjudication. The case illustrates critical questions of patent validity, inventive step, public interest under regulatory frameworks, and the balance of convenience in granting interim relief in infringement suits.
Factual Background
SML Limited is the assignee and lawful proprietor of Indian Patent No. 282092, granted on March 30, 2017, for a fertilizer composition comprising sulfur, zinc oxide, and an agrochemically acceptable excipient in specific micronized granular form. The plaintiff launched its product under the brand name “Techno Z” in August 2018. The patent was subjected to pre-grant and post-grant oppositions, both of which were dismissed after full consideration by the Indian Patent Office.
In 2023, the plaintiff discovered that the defendants were marketing a similar product under the name “Aladdin,” which allegedly fell within the scope of Claims 11 and 12 of the suit patent. The composition, structure, and particle size of the product were alleged to be substantially identical to those protected under the patent.
Procedural Background
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction along with an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking interim injunction to restrain the defendants from continuing the manufacture, sale, and distribution of the infringing product. An ex parte interim injunction was granted on July 24, 2023. The defendants challenged the injunction through a commercial appeal, which was dismissed on the grounds of delay. Subsequently, the High Court heard detailed arguments from both sides and reserved judgment on the interim application on April 25, 2025.
Legal Issue
The primary legal issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to an interim injunction against the defendants for the alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 282092. The question further involved whether the defendants had raised a credible challenge to the validity of the patent under Sections 3(d), 2(1)(ja), and 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, and whether public interest considerations under the Fertilizer Control Order (FCO) could override proprietary patent rights.
Discussion on Judgments
The plaintiff relied on the following cases:
- Novartis AG & Anr. v. Cipla Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6430 – held that a patentee enjoys exclusive monopoly over the patented invention and is entitled to protection under Section 48 of the Patents Act.
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. & Ors. v. J.D. Joshi, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 10109 – stated that old and unopposed patents enjoy a presumption of validity and interim relief should ordinarily be granted unless strongly challenged.
- Strix Ltd. v. Maharaja Appliances Ltd., MIPR 2010 (1) 0181 – emphasized the need for expert scientific material to credibly challenge a patent’s validity.
The defendants relied on:
- Dhanpat Seth & Ors. v. Nil Kamal Plastic Crates Ltd., 2007 SCC OnLine HP 33 – clarified that the grant of a patent doesn’t automatically entitle the patentee to an injunction.
- F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 382 – held that the “six-year rule” is merely a caution and does not absolve the patentee from proving strength of claim.
- Novartis AG v. Natco Pharma Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5340 – stated that claims lacking inventive step or falling under prior art are not protected by interim injunctions.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
The Court analyzed the pleadings, scientific material, expert affidavits, and comparative composition data. It noted that the plaintiff had not only secured a statutory patent but had also successfully defended it in both pre- and post-grant opposition proceedings. The patent remained unchallenged for over 14 years.
Claims 11 and 12 of the suit patent clearly described a fertilizer composition with specific ranges for sulfur, zinc oxide, and particle size. Expert evidence by Dr. Phool Kumar Patanjali demonstrated that the defendants’ product “Aladdin” fell within these parameters. The defendants failed to rebut this with credible evidence or expert testimony.
The Court rejected the argument that FCO compliance justified infringement, stating that regulatory standards do not override proprietary patent rights. It also dismissed jurisdictional objections, finding evidence of sales within the State.
Public interest, the Court held, would not be served by permitting unlicensed use of patented technology, especially where the patentee had invested in significant R&D efforts and the patent had survived scrutiny.
Final Decision
The High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, or exporting the infringing product “Aladdin” or any product falling under Indian Patent No. 282092 until further orders. The Court upheld the patent’s statutory exclusivity and found that the balance of convenience, irreparable harm, and prima facie case favored the plaintiff.
Law Settled in This Case
The judgment reaffirmed that:
- Indian patents, especially those upheld through opposition proceedings, enjoy a presumption of validity.
- Defendants must raise credible, scientifically supported challenges to avoid interim relief.
- Regulatory compliance (e.g., with FCO) does not protect infringing products from patent enforcement.
- Courts must balance statutory rights, prima facie infringement, and public interest in interim decisions.
Case Details
- Case Title: SML Limited Vs. Mohan & Company & Anr.
- Date of Order: 6 June 2025
- Case Number: OMP No. 320 of 2023 in COMS No. 6 of 2023
- Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:18160
- Name of Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla
- Name of Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma
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
