Summary
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. against BR Agrotech Ltd. and another defendant for infringing GSP’s patented agrochemical formulation. The court awarded ₹50 lakh in damages and affirmed that sellers can be held liable for patent infringement.
In a recent ruling on patent infringement in the agrochemical sector, the Delhi High Court decreed a suit in favor of GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. against BR Agrotech Limited and another defendant for infringing GSP’s Indian Patent No. 394568. The court not only directed one of the Defendants to pay 50 lakhs as damages but also reiterated that sellers are liable for patent infringement even if they are not directly involved in the manufacturing of an infringing product.
Background
GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and based in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, specializes in manufacturing and selling agrochemicals. GSP invested heavily in research and development, securing over 70 patents, including Indian Patent No. 394568 (IN’568), granted in 2022 after filing in 2014. This patent claims a synergistic suspo-emulsion formulation combining Pyriproxyfen (1% to 15%) and Diafenthiuron (25% to 55%) with specific excipients, along with a preparation process, offering enhanced stability and efficacy against pests like whiteflies on cotton and tomato leaf miners. GSP commercialized this as SLR 525 (5% Pyriproxyfen and 25% Diafenthiuron) since 2018, obtaining approval under Section 9(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968.
In 2022-2023, GSP discovered an infringing product being sold under the name Roxyfin, a suspo-emulsion with identical composition (5% Pyriproxyfen and 25% Diafenthiuron), manufactured by BR Agrotech Limited (Defendant No. 1) under a Section 9(4) registration and marketed by the second defendant (Defendant No. 2). This led GSP to file a suit for patent infringement, seeking injunctions and damages, as the defendants’ actions undermined GSP’s monopoly rights under the Patents Act, 1970. An interim injunction was granted by the Court earlier in February 2023, made absolute in July 2024 against Defendant No. 2, after settlement with BR Agrotech in March 2023. GSP, therefore then applied under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for judgment on admission against Defendant No. 2.
Issues before the Court
-
-
- Whether Defendant No. 2’s admissions in affidavits and statements constituted clear and unequivocal acknowledgments of selling the infringing product, warranting judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
- Whether selling the infringing product amounted to patent infringement under Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970, irrespective of Defendant No. 2’s role as a marketer without manufacturing involvement.
-
Arguments of the Plaintiff (GSP)
GSP contended that its patent IN’568 was valid, having survived seven pre-grant oppositions and two writ petitions, granting it exclusive rights to prevent third parties from making, using, selling, or importing the claimed formulation. GSP argued that Roxyfin directly infringed the patent claims, as evidenced by BR Agrotech’s Section 9(4) registration mirroring GSP’s approved product. GSP highlighted Defendant No. 2’s admissions in affidavits dated April 13, 2023, and May 2, 2023, where it acknowledged purchasing and selling Roxyfin, providing sales figures (Rs. 2,20,23,600 for 2021-2022 and Rs. 2,24,82,000 for 2022-2023). GSP asserted these were plain admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, entitling it to judgment without trial, citing precedents like Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India and Delhi Jal Board v. Surendra P. Malik for the court’s power to decree on unambiguous admissions. GSP further submitted that Section 48 liability under the Patents Act extended not only to manufacturers but also to sellers, rendering Defendant No. 2’s defenses inconsequential.
Arguments of the Defendant
Defendant No. 2 countered that it was merely an honest marketer without collusion in infringement, as BR Agrotech held the manufacturing license under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. It argued that the suit was not maintainable against it post-settlement with BR Agrotech and that its statements were contextual admissions of past sales, not unequivocal or intentional infringement. Defendant No. 2 claimed that the admissions were conditional, denying future intent to infringe and asserting that denials in its written statement were strong reasons to warrant a trial. It further alleged that GSP’s application was mala fide, aimed at pressuring the withdrawal of its post-grant opposition against the IN’568 patent.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The court observed that patent IN’568 validly claimed a suspension-emulsion of Pyriproxyfen (1-15%) and Diafenthiuron (25-55%), commercialized as SLR 525, and that Roxyfin matched this composition exactly, as confirmed by infringement mapping.
It noted Defendant No. 2’s affidavits explicitly admitted marketing and selling Roxyfin with detailed sales data, constituting clear admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
The court analyzed Section 48 of the Patents Act, emphasizing that it prohibits third parties from “making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing” patented products, using “or” to cover independent acts like selling, without requiring manufacturing or collusion.
Relying on Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Sanjeev Gupta, the court held sellers liable for infringement. It found Defendant No. 2’s defenses untenable, as admissions were unambiguous and not conditional, and post-grant opposition did not absolve infringement liability. The court invoked precedents like Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India to decree the suit, preventing misuse of judicial process.
Conclusion
The court allowed GSP’s application, decreeing the suit against Defendant No. 2 with a permanent injunction restraining it, its agents, and affiliates from dealing in any infringing suspo-emulsion of Pyriproxyfen (1-15%) and Diafenthiuron (25-55%). It awarded Rs. 50 lakh in damages to the Plaintiff and Rs. 2 Lakhs in costs payable to the Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund, with 6% interest on damages if unpaid within six weeks.
Citation: GSP Crop Sci. Pvt. Ltd. v. BR Agrotech Ltd., CS(COMM) 82/2023, High Ct. of Delhi (July 25, 2025). Available on https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37775015/