SML Limited Vs. Mohan & Company & Anr.

Introduction: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 placed heavy reliance on Novartis AG & Anr. v. Cipla Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6430, where the Delhi High Court held that a patentee enjoys exclusive monopoly over the patented invention and is entitled to seek protection under Section 48 of the Patents Act. The Court emphasized that even at the interim stage, the statutory rights of a patent holder must be protected in the absence of a strong challenge to the validity of the patent.

Another case cited was Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. & Ors. v. J.D. Joshi, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 10109, where the Court held that old and unopposed patents enjoy a presumption of validity and interim relief should ordinarily be granted unless a strong prima facie challenge is made.

To support its claim of credibility in patent enforcement, the plaintiff referred to Strix Ltd. v. Maharaja Appliances Ltd., MIPR 2010 (1) 0181, where it was held that a defendant must present acceptable scientific material supported by expert evidence to raise a credible challenge to validity.

The defendants relied on Dhanpat Seth & Ors. v. Nil Kamal Plastic Crates Ltd., 2007 SCC OnLine HP 33, where the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that mere grant of a patent does not automatically entitle the patentee to an injunction. Section 107 of the Patents Act allows a defendant to challenge the validity of a patent even in an infringement suit.

They also cited F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 382, where the Delhi High Court held that the six-year rule for old patents is only a cautionary principle, and the patentee must still demonstrate prima facie strength in its case.

The defendants further relied on Novartis AG v. Natco Pharma Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5340, to argue that claims lacking inventive step or falling within prior art should not be protected under an interim injunction. They asserted that their product followed government-mandated FCO standards, and that the plaintiff's patent simply mimicked these existing public standards.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:Justice Sandeep Sharma analyzed the pleadings, scientific material, expert affidavits, and comparative composition data presented. The Court observed 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 had remained unchallenged for over 14 years.

The Court noted that Claims 11 and 12 of the suit patent clearly described a fertilizer composition with specific ranges for sulfur, zinc oxide, and particle size, and the expert report from Dr. Phool Kumar Patanjali demonstrated that the defendants’ product “Aladdin” fell within these technical specifications. The Court found that the defendants had not submitted any rebuttal expert testimony or substantial material to credibly challenge the novelty or inventive step of the patent.

While the defendants argued that the product complied with FCO standards and involved bentonite as an excipient, the Court held that FCO compliance could not justify infringement of a patent. The regulatory framework under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, does not supersede proprietary rights granted under the Patents Act. The Court was also unconvinced by the defendants’ jurisdictional objections, finding that sales within the State had been established.

Importantly, the Court held that public interest would not be served by allowing unlicensed use of patented technology, especially when the patentee had invested in significant R&D efforts and the patent had survived statutory scrutiny.

Final Decision:The High Court granted the interim injunction, restraining the defendants from manufacturing, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, or exporting the infringing product “Aladdin” or any product covered under Indian Patent No. 282092 until further orders. The Court upheld the statutory exclusivity conferred by the patent and found that the balance of convenience, irreparable harm, and prima facie case all lay in favor of the plaintiff.

Law Settled in This Case:The judgment reaffirmed that the grant of an Indian patent, especially one that has stood the test of opposition and been in force for a significant duration, enjoys a presumption of validity. A defendant challenging such a patent in interim proceedings must raise a credible and scientifically supported challenge. The case establishes that statutory compliance with FCO regulations does not immunize an infringing product from patent enforcement. Furthermore, the Court clarified that interim injunctions in patent cases must balance statutory rights, prima facie infringement, and the public interest without deferring entirely to regulatory standards under different legislation.

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], High Court of Delhi