Agriculture — India Patent Cases
157 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 6 · 157 total
Gsp Crop Science Private Limited v.Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors.
The court addressed arguments regarding the maintainability and survival of a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The order noted that a Division Bench had held that such a petition remains maintainable even after patent expiry or when an invalidity defence is raised in suit.
Crystal Crop Protection Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
The appellant challenged an order concerning the patentability/inventive step. The respondent filed an application to place additional public domain documents on record. The court allowed the admission of these documents but ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the original Impugned Order regarding lack of inventive step was well-reasoned.
AIC246 AG & Co. KG v.The Patent Office of India and Ors.
The petitioner challenged an order by the Controller of Patents rejecting its application for a fungicide combination. The core issue was that the Petitioner was not granted a mandatory hearing under Section 14 of the Patents Act before the rejection, despite the statutory framework requiring such a procedure. The Court found this omission arbitrary and contrary to the law.
Grains Research And Development Corporation v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Appellant filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent for a method of controlling insects in stored food using synthetic amorphous silica. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d).
Hindustan Pesticides Manufacturer Association v.Dhanuka Agritech Ltd. & Anr.
The petitioner filed a rectification petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking to revoke or cancel Indian Patent IN420915, which relates to a Water Soluble Granular Insecticidal Composition. The court issued notices to the respondents and granted time for them to file their replies.
UPL Limited v.Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association & Anr.
The petitioner challenged an order rejecting its patent application for 'HERBICIDAL COMBINATIONS' based on pre-grant opposition grounds (lack of novelty/inventive steps). The core grievance was that the respondent authorities failed to provide the appellant with separate opportunities of hearing under Sections 14 and 25(1) of the Patents Act, leading to a violation of natural justice.
Mitsui Chemical Agro Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
The appellant, Mitsui Chemical Agro Inc., challenged a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents. The court heard preliminary submissions regarding whether the sufficiency of disclosure under Section 10(4) was complied with and if the rejection order lacked adequate reasons.
UPL Limited And Anr v.Royal Agro Tech And Ors
The Plaintiffs filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringement related to agricultural chemicals, specifically concerning an Indian Patent and Trade Mark. The court granted several applications, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and advance service, while directing the execution of Local Commissions to inspect infringing products.
Haryana Pesticide Manufacturers Association v.The Controller Of Patents And Design & Anr.
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an impugned order regarding Patent application no. 201621004267. The petitioner asserted that mandatory procedures under Section 25(1) were not followed and the certificate of grant had not been issued despite filing a pre-grant opposition.
M/s.Rallis India Limited v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Rallis India Limited appealed an order issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents challenging the rejection of its patent application for a stable herbicidal composition. The appellant argued that the prior art cited (IN 2243/MUM/2014, D1, and D2) did not adequately disclose or teach the claimed invention's specific formulation. The High Court found merit in these contentions.
FMC Corporation & Ors. v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs, FMC Corporation & Ors., filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Natco Pharma Limited, alleging infringement of their patented Compound of Formula 3 (IN'645). The suit was a quia timet action concerning the product 'Cyantraniliprole 10.26% OD'. Despite the defendant having already launched the product, the Delhi High Court dismissed the application for an interim injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case and noted that damages could be compensable at trial.
Moti Insecticides Private Limited v.Gsp Crop Science Limited & Anr.
Moti Insecticides Private Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN 394568. The court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file their reply within four weeks.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Mikado Crop Science Pvt Ltd
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Mikado Crop Science Pvt Ltd for infringing Indian Patent No. 394568, which covers a specific suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. Although the defendant conceded to the grant of permanent injunction, the court also directed notice to an e-commerce website (AgriBegri) regarding the listing of the infringing product 'DYNA' to investigate commercial sales.
Gsp Crop Science Ltd v.Gilehri Organics & Ors.
The Plaintiff, Gsp Crop Science Ltd., filed a suit seeking to restrain the infringement of its Indian Patent (IN'568) related to a synergistic formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. The court passed an order addressing various interlocutory applications, including granting exemption from pre-institution mediation and allowing for urgent interim relief measures.
Dcm Shriram Limited v.Mr Sanjay Tada
Dcm Shriram Limited successfully concluded its intellectual property dispute against Mr. Sanjay Tada through an amicable settlement before the Delhi High Court. The court decreed the suit based on the parties' undertaking, which required the defendant to acknowledge all of the plaintiff's trademark and copyright rights. Crucially, the defendant agreed to cease using infringing marks like '303', destroy all related materials, and change packaging for agricultural seeds.
Crystal Crop Protection Ltd v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
Crystal Crop Protection Ltd filed an application under Sections 57 and 59 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking to amend the claims and remand Patent Application No. 1982/DEL/2013 back to the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs. The Court issued notice and directed the filing of a reply within four weeks.
Gsp Crop Science Limited v.Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd. & Ors
Gsp Crop Science Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation and removal of Indian Patent No. 298645 from the Register of Patents. The court heard initial arguments but adjourned the matter to allow counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 time to obtain instructions, noting that the patent is nearing its expiry date.
Upl Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Upl Limited challenged an order rejecting its patent application, arguing that the rejection was based on lack of novelty/inventive step and violated principles of natural justice because expert evidence was ignored. The petitioner contended that the combination offered unexpected advantages in crop yield by controlling fungal diseases. The High Court found a serious infirmity in the impugned order due to procedural lapses and set it aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Base Se v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged the Deputy Controller's order rejecting parts of the 'Pesticidal Mixture' patent application. The appellant argued that the rejection violated natural justice and misinterpreted Section 3(h) of the Act. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that a partial grant is untenable as it undermines the principle of unity of invention.
Kubota Corporation v.Godabari Agro Machinery And Services India Private Limited & Ors.
The plaintiff, Kubota Corporation, sued defendants for patent infringement concerning its self-propelled combine harvester (HARVES KING). Defendant No. 3 filed an application seeking return of plaint on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiff had established jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the CPC.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt Ltd v.Br Agrotech Limited And Anr
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its Indian Patent No. 3945681, which covers a synergistic suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. The court allowed an application for judgment on admission against Defendant No. 2 after finding inescapable liability due to admissions made by the defendant.
Kamterter Products Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents
Kamterter Products Llc appealed against an order rejecting its patent application (IN 1044/KOLNP/2010) for a 'SEED TESTING METHOD AND APPARATUS' under Section 15 of the Patent Act, 1970. The appellant contended that the rejection order was devoid of reasoning and violated principles of natural justice. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
New Narbada Divya Jyoti Impex v.Narmada Agrobase Limited
The Gujarat High Court allowed an appeal challenging an injunction granted by the lower court against New Narbada Divya Jyoti Impex. The core issue was not the merits of trademark infringement, but rather that the trial court's original judgment lacked sufficient reasoning to support its conclusion. Citing established legal principles regarding judicial transparency and natural justice, the High Court quashed the restrictive order and remanded the matter back to the lower court for a fresh decision supported by complete reasons.
SML Limited v.Mohan & Company &Anr.
The plaintiff, SML Limited, filed a suit seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against Mohan & Company &Anr. for infringing its agricultural composition patent (IN'092). The infringement was alleged through the sale and marketing of products under the brand name 'Aladdin'.
Crystal Crop Protection Limited v.Safex Chemicals India Limited
Crystal Crop Protection Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Safex Chemicals India Limited for infringing its registered patent no. 417213, which covers a novel weedicidal formulation. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's product 'RACER' had an identical composition to the patented invention. However, while considering the interim injunction application, the Delhi High Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case because the element of 'dyeing agent or pigment' was not proven to be non-essential in the patent claim. Consequently, the court dismissed the injunction request.
Upl Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents Designs And Trademark
Upl Ltd challenged the rejection of its patent application concerning a novel agrochemical fungicide combination. The core dispute centered on whether adding a multi-site fungicide to existing SDHI combinations provided a synergistic and unexpected technical advantage, or if it was merely an obvious aggregation of known substances. The Calcutta High Court found that the original order lacked proper analysis of the experimental data supporting synergy and noted procedural lapses by the Controller in failing to issue a Second Examination Report (SER). Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Kemin Industries, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents
Kemin Industries appealed an order rejecting its patent application concerning the use of Ferulic Acid Esterase (FAE) combined with four main chain degrading enzymes in monogastric animals. The appellant argued that the specific combination provided synergistic effects and was not obvious from prior art. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection and directing the patent application to proceed for grant.
BASF SE v.JOINT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS AND ORS
BASF SE appealed a rejection order concerning its patent application for 'CRYSTALLINE MODIFICATIONS TO PYRACLOSTROBIN' (Form IV modification). The appellant argued that the 18-year delay in disposal violated natural justice and that the rejection was erroneous on merits. The court set aside the impugned order, primarily due to the egregious delay.
Syngenta Limited And Anr. v.Gsp Crop Science Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking a direction to the defendant to comply with the mutually agreed Terms of Reference (ToR) and provide access to specific documents shared under the ToR. The defendant opposed this, citing concerns over leakage of proprietary information and violation of Section 104A of the Patents Act. The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, directing the defendant to supply the requested information while allowing redaction of supplier names.
Syngenta Crop Protection Ag v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
Syngenta Crop Protection Ag challenged the refusal of its patent application, which covered methods for controlling rice plant infestations using a specific compound. The initial rejection was based on the argument that these methods constituted 'methods of agriculture' and were thus unpatentable under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court overturned this decision, holding that a method of treating plants is distinct from fundamental agricultural practices. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Controller for fresh examination.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.