{"id":6161,"date":"2025-07-12T05:45:41","date_gmt":"2025-07-12T05:45:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=6161"},"modified":"2025-07-12T05:49:43","modified_gmt":"2025-07-12T05:49:43","slug":"interim-relief-and-presumption-of-validity-in-patent-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interim-relief-and-presumption-of-validity-in-patent-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Interim Relief and Presumption of Validity in Patent Law"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Summary\"><\/span>Case Summary<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>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 &amp; Company and Safex Chemicals India Ltd., over a competing fertilizer product branded as &#8220;Aladdin.&#8221; 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.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interim-relief-and-presumption-of-validity-in-patent-law\/#Case_Summary\" >Case Summary<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interim-relief-and-presumption-of-validity-in-patent-law\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interim-relief-and-presumption-of-validity-in-patent-law\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interim-relief-and-presumption-of-validity-in-patent-law\/#Legal_Issue\" >Legal Issue<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interim-relief-and-presumption-of-validity-in-patent-law\/#Discussion_on_Judgments\" >Discussion on Judgments<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interim-relief-and-presumption-of-validity-in-patent-law\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Judge\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interim-relief-and-presumption-of-validity-in-patent-law\/#Final_Decision\" >Final Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interim-relief-and-presumption-of-validity-in-patent-law\/#Law_Settled_in_This_Case\" >Law Settled in This Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/interim-relief-and-presumption-of-validity-in-patent-law\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>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 \u201cTechno Z\u201d 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.<\/p>\n<p>In 2023, the plaintiff discovered that the defendants were marketing a similar product under the name \u201cAladdin,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Issue\"><\/span>Legal Issue<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Discussion_on_Judgments\"><\/span>Discussion on Judgments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The plaintiff relied on the following cases:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Novartis AG &amp; Anr. v. Cipla Ltd.<\/strong>, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6430 \u2013 held that a patentee enjoys exclusive monopoly over the patented invention and is entitled to protection under Section 48 of the Patents Act.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. &amp; Ors. v. J.D. Joshi<\/strong>, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 10109 \u2013 stated that old and unopposed patents enjoy a presumption of validity and interim relief should ordinarily be granted unless strongly challenged.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Strix Ltd. v. Maharaja Appliances Ltd.<\/strong>, MIPR 2010 (1) 0181 \u2013 emphasized the need for expert scientific material to credibly challenge a patent\u2019s validity.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The defendants relied on:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Dhanpat Seth &amp; Ors. v. Nil Kamal Plastic Crates Ltd.<\/strong>, 2007 SCC OnLine HP 33 \u2013 clarified that the grant of a patent doesn\u2019t automatically entitle the patentee to an injunction.<\/li>\n<li><strong>F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd.<\/strong>, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 382 \u2013 held that the \u201csix-year rule\u201d is merely a caution and does not absolve the patentee from proving strength of claim.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Novartis AG v. Natco Pharma Ltd.<\/strong>, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5340 \u2013 stated that claims lacking inventive step or falling under prior art are not protected by interim injunctions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Judge\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>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\u2019 product \u201cAladdin\u201d fell within these parameters. The defendants failed to rebut this with credible evidence or expert testimony.<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>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&amp;D efforts and the patent had survived scrutiny.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision\"><\/span>Final Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, or exporting the infringing product \u201cAladdin\u201d or any product falling under Indian Patent No. 282092 until further orders. The Court upheld the patent\u2019s statutory exclusivity and found that the balance of convenience, irreparable harm, and prima facie case favored the plaintiff.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Law_Settled_in_This_Case\"><\/span>Law Settled in This Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The judgment reaffirmed that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Indian patents, especially those upheld through opposition proceedings, enjoy a presumption of validity.<\/li>\n<li>Defendants must raise credible, scientifically supported challenges to avoid interim relief.<\/li>\n<li>Regulatory compliance (e.g., with FCO) does not protect infringing products from patent enforcement.<\/li>\n<li>Courts must balance statutory rights, prima facie infringement, and public interest in interim decisions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Case Title:<\/strong> SML Limited Vs. Mohan &amp; Company &amp; Anr.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Date of Order:<\/strong> 6 June 2025<\/li>\n<li><strong>Case Number:<\/strong> OMP No. 320 of 2023 in COMS No. 6 of 2023<\/li>\n<li><strong>Neutral Citation:<\/strong> 2025:HHC:18160<\/li>\n<li><strong>Name of Court:<\/strong> High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla<\/li>\n<li><strong>Name of Judge:<\/strong> Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Disclaimer:\u00a0<\/b>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.<\/p>\n<p><b>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/b>, IP Adjutor &#8211; Patent and Trademark Attorney<br \/>\nEmail: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[28],"class_list":{"0":"post-6161","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6161","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6161"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6161\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6161"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6161"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6161"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}