Admission under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC as a Tool for Swift Decision in Patent Litigation
Introduction: 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., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, with its office in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of agrochemicals. The company has invested significantly in research and development to create affordable products for Indian farmers, resulting in over 70 patents and patent applications, including Indian Patent No. 394568 (hereinafter referred to as IN'568). This patent, granted in 2022, covers a synergistic suspo-emulsion formulation comprising Pyriproxyfen (in the range of 1 to 15%) and Diafenthiuron (25 to 55%), along with specific excipients. The patent's application, filed in 2014, survived seven pre-grant oppositions under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, and was upheld by the Indian Patent Office.
The plaintiff commercialized this invention as an insecticide named SLR 525, containing 5% Pyriproxyfen and 25% Diafenthiuron, which received approval under Section 9(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, in August 2018. In 2022-23, the plaintiff discovered that Defendant No.2 was selling a product named Roxyfin, a suspo-emulsion with the identical composition of 5% Pyriproxyfen and 25% Diafenthiuron, manufactured by Defendant No.1 under a Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIBRC) license (CIR-172356-2020) obtained under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. The plaintiff alleged that Roxyfin infringed IN'568, as its composition fell squarely within the patent's claims, causing irreparable harm by undermining the plaintiff's exclusive rights.
Procedural Background: The plaintiff instituted the suit, CS(COMM) 82/2023, seeking a permanent injunction to restrain both defendants from infringing IN'568, along with ancillary reliefs. On February 16, 2023, the High Court of Delhi granted an ad interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff against both defendants. Subsequently, on March 3, 2023, the suit was decreed against Defendant No.1 based on a settlement, wherein Defendant No.1 acknowledged the plaintiff's exclusive rights and admitted to manufacturing and supplying Roxyfin to various entities, including Defendant No.2. The interim injunction against Defendant No.2 was made absolute on July 4, 2024. The plaintiff then filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking a judgment on admission against Defendant No.2, relying on affidavits and statements where Defendant No.2 admitted to selling Roxyfin. Defendant No.2 contested the application, arguing it was merely a marketer acting under Defendant No.1’s license, lacked intent to infringe, and that the settlement with Defendant No.1 extinguished any claims against it. The court reserved its judgment on July 11, 2025, and pronounced it on July 25, 2025.
Core Dispute: The central issue in this case was whether Defendant No.2’s act of selling Roxyfin, a product with the same chemical composition as the plaintiff’s patented SLR 525, constituted infringement of IN'568 under Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970, and whether the admissions made by Defendant No.2 in its affidavits warranted a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiff argued that Defendant No.2’s sale of Roxyfin, which matched the patented formulation, violated its exclusive rights, and the admissions in Defendant No.2’s affidavits were clear, unequivocal, and sufficient to decree the suit without a trial. Defendant No.2 countered that it was only a marketer, not the manufacturer, and relied on Defendant No.1’s CIBRC license, claiming no intent to infringe and asserting that the settlement with Defendant No.1 absolved it of liability. The dispute thus hinged on the interpretation of Section 48, the scope of patent infringement liability for sellers, and the applicability of Order XII Rule 6 based on Defendant No.2’s admissions.
Discussion on Judgments: The court and the parties relied on several judicial precedents to support their positions. The plaintiff cited Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India, reported as (2000) 7 SCC 120, to argue that Order XII Rule 6 enables courts to pass judgments on clear admissions when a party’s defense is untenable, and no plausible explanation is provided to counter the admissions. This precedent was invoked to emphasize that Defendant No.2’s admissions regarding the sale of Roxyfin justified a decree without trial. The plaintiff also relied on Delhi Jal Board v. Surendranath, reported as (2000) 7 SCC 120, to reinforce that courts can expedite justice under Order XII Rule 6 when admissions render further trial unnecessary. Additionally, the plaintiff referred to National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Ashval Vadera, reported as 91 (2001) DLT 386, to argue that admissions, even if not explicit, can be inferred from vague denials or documents, and courts must prevent misuse of judicial processes by decreeing suits based on such admissions. The court found these precedents persuasive, noting that Defendant No.2’s affidavits dated May 2, 2023, and April 13, 2023, unequivocally admitted sales of Roxyfin, aligning with the principles in these cases. The court also cited Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Sanjeev Gupta, reported as unreported by the Delhi High Court, to interpret Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970. In Merck, a coordinate bench rejected the argument that infringement under Section 48 requires all activities (making, using, selling, importing) to occur in India, emphasizing the disjunctive “or” in the provision, which holds any single act, such as selling, as sufficient for infringement liability. This was critical in dismissing Defendant No.2’s defense that it was merely a marketer, as the court held that selling alone triggered liability under Section 48.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge: The judge first addressed the scope of IN'568, noting that the patent’s claims covered a suspo-emulsion with 1-15% Pyriproxyfen and 25-55% Diafenthiuron, and Roxyfin’s composition (5% Pyriproxyfen and 25% Diafenthiuron) fell squarely within this scope, as confirmed by the infringement analysis in the plaint. The court emphasized that Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970, grants the patentee exclusive rights to prevent third parties from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing the patented product without consent. The use of the disjunctive “or” in the provision meant that Defendant No.2’s act of selling Roxyfin was sufficient to constitute infringement, irrespective of its role as a marketer rather than a manufacturer. The court rejected Defendant No.2’s defense that it relied on Defendant No.1’s CIBRC license under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, holding that such a license does not override patent rights under the Patents Act, 1970, and allowing such a defense would undermine the patentee’s monopoly.
The judge further analyzed Defendant No.2’s affidavits, particularly those dated May 2, 2023, and April 13, 2023, where it admitted to purchasing and selling significant quantities of Roxyfin, generating substantial revenue. These admissions were deemed clear, unequivocal, and unambiguous, satisfying the requirements for a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court dismissed Defendant No.2’s argument that the settlement with Defendant No.1 extinguished its liability, noting that the settlement did not cover Defendant No.2’s independent acts of infringement. Drawing on the principles from Uttam Singh Duggal and National Textile Corporation, the court underscored its duty to prevent prolonged litigation and misuse of judicial processes, particularly when admissions rendered the defense untenable. The judge also addressed Defendant No.2’s claim of bona fide marketing, finding it irrelevant under Section 48, which imposes strict liability for infringement without exceptions for intent or reliance on a third party’s license.
Final Decision :The High Court of Delhi allowed the plaintiff’s application under Order XII Rule 6 and decreed the suit in favor of GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. against Defendant No.2 on July 25, 2025. The court issued a permanent injunction restraining Defendant No.2 from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing any product infringing IN'568. Defendant No.2 was directed to pay damages of Rs. 50,00,000 to the plaintiff within six weeks, with an interest rate of 6% per annum on the sum if unpaid within the stipulated period. Additionally, the court imposed costs and special costs of Rs. 2,00,000, payable to the Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund within six weeks. All pending applications were disposed of, and a decree sheet was ordered to be drawn up accordingly.
Law Settled in This Case :This case reinforces several key principles in Indian patent law and civil procedure. It clarifies that under Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970, any act of selling a patented product without the patentee’s consent constitutes infringement, regardless of the actor’s role in the supply chain (e.g., marketer or seller) or their reliance on a third party’s regulatory license, such as one under the Insecticides Act, 1968. The use of the disjunctive “or” in Section 48 establishes that each enumerated act (making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing) independently triggers liability, without requiring territorial nexus for all activities. The case also underscores the potency of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as an enabling provision to expedite justice when clear, unequivocal admissions are made, eliminating the need for a trial. Furthermore, it emphasizes the court’s duty to prevent misuse of judicial processes by decreeing suits based on admissions, particularly to protect patentees from prolonged litigation that undermines their exclusive rights. The decision highlights that defenses based on bona fide intent or third-party licenses are untenable against patent infringement claims, reinforcing the strict liability nature of Section 48.
Case Title: GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. v. BR Agrotech Limited and AnrDate of Order: July 25, 2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 82/2023
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:6055:
Name of Court:High Court of Delhi
Name of 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], High Court of Delhi
No comments:
Post a Comment