Source: https://indianipr.in/2018/06/26/defendants-claim-that-the-plaintiff-is-not-entitled-to-an-interim-injunction-for-concealment-of-facts-and-material-variations-deserves-to-be-rejected-for-the-reason-even-if-there-has-been-amendment-in/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 06:48:25+00:00

Document:
Defendants claim that the Plaintiff is not entitled to an interim injunction for concealment of facts and material variations deserves to be rejected for the reason even if there has been amendment in the plaint, this Court has to construct the claim on the basis of what is claimed in the patent documents, as has been noted above. Further the Insecticides Registration Committee has no jurisdiction to decide on Patent registration as held in the decision reported as Shogun Organics Ltd. v. Union of India (2013) SCC Online Ker 22792. Finding by the Insecticides Registration Committee being finding of a body which has no effect on the validity of the Patent, mere non-disclosure of the finding of the Insecticides Board prinia facie cannot be held to be material suppression of facts and injunction refused on the said count.
Tahir A.J. and Kumar Chitranshu, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: J. Sai Deepak and Avinash K. Sharma, Advs.
Insecticides Registration Committee has no authority to decide infringement of Patents. Plaintiff claim for relief of interim injunction regarding infringement of its three patents and prayer for an order of interim injunction was liable to be allowed. As the novelty of suit patent cannot be overlooked. Therefore the composition of products for registration of herbicidal composition of Plaintiff and Defendant were same. Claims of Plaintiff’s suit patents comprise of 5-10 per cent metsulfuron methyl and Defendants 5 per cent weight of metsulfuron methyl.
Plaintiff’s suit patents claimed 70-80 per cent by weight of sulfosulfuron and Defendant’s product registration consisted of 75 per cent weight of sulfofulfuron. Q.S. filler (precipitated silica) was also noted in Plaintiff’s claim besides, 1 per cent weight of silicon defoarmer. Moreover claim of Defendant was that, its product contained polyoxyethyline Sorbitan, which was also there in Plaintiff’s suit patent IN 551, fatty acid ester which is missing in Defendant’s product is also missing in Plaintiff’s suit patent IN 551. Thus, even as per Defendant, only difference between Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s product was absence of a stabilizer which could not be an essential ingredient. A comparison of claim of Plaintiff’s suit patent and Defendant’s product revealed that, Defendant’s product registration related to suit patent of Plaintiff. It was not the case of Plaintiff and Defendant that, composition was not a stable compound and an addition of.l to 10 per cent weight of stabilizer being added further would not make compound as a different compound not infringing Plaintiff’s patent, as all essential ingredients with their requisite composition and percentage were same.
on the basis of what is claimed in the patent documents, as has been noted above.
held to be material suppression of facts and injunction refused on the said count.
Gharda Chemicals, the Plaintiff has made out a strong prima facie case in its favour.
convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiff.
in its favour pending hearing of the suit.
synergistic herbicidal composition” is both a product and process patent.
grassy as well as broad leaf weeds.
Methyl (5 per cent) WG which is the composition as per the Patents of the Plaintiff.
both grassy as well as broad leaf weeds. The claim of the Defendant that its product is different for the reason it contains sorbitan ester and HMX/ammonium sulphate does not make a difference for the reason the two are minor ingredients and their absence do not make any difference. The Defendants claim that the Plaintiff is not the inventor of the suit patent but Dr. C.P. Singh whose publication is a prior art deserves to be rejected for the reason Dr. C.P. Singh only suggested that Metsulfuron and Sulfosulfuron be used one after another and not as a combination whereas Plaintiff’s inventions use the two compounds synergistically. Further the findings of Dr. C.P. Singh are entirely different from the inventions claimed in the suit Patents IN 130, IN 551 and IN 225. Dr. C.P. Singh has never contested the Plaintiff’s patents till date. Defendant cannot also claim lack of novelty in view of the prior art US 182 for the reason US 182 did not anticipate suit patent and disclosed composition comprising a singular chemical compound with a surfactant and does not disclose the composition of metsiilfuron and sulfosulfuron together with adjuvants as claimed. A combined reading of US 182, US 301, Annual report of ICAR 2001 as well as report of Dr. Singh does not render the invention of the suit patents obvious.
Raj Parkash v. Mangat Rani Chomilin/ & Ore.1 1LR (1977) II Delhi; Shogun Organics ltd.
v. Union of India (2013) SCC Online Ker 22792; National Development Corporation v.
Appliances Ltd.2 (2009) SCC Online Del 2825; Bristol-Myers Squib Co. and Ors. v. /.D.
No. 292 of 2014; Alphapltarm Pty Ltd. v. Wyetli (2009) FCA 945.
soap defoamer in addition to other defoamers and significantly high amount of wetting agents and dispersing agents. Additionally, the product registration does not contain polyoxyethylene sorbitan fatty acids ester and stabilizing agent. The claim of the Defendant being outside the scope of the suit patents is supported by the finding of a technical body i.e. the Registration Committee of the Central Government Insecticides Board as far back as in 2006 when it was held that Defendant’s registration did not cover a composition which was allegedly prepared by a process IN 225. Plaintiff filed an appeal against this decision before the Statutory Authority in the year 2006 itself but did not pursue it. Plaintiffs denial that the appeal related only to the process patent IN 225 deserves to be rejected for the reason the suit relates to the three patents IN 130 being divisional to the process patent IN 225 and IN 551 being a patent of addition. The two product patents i.e. IN 130 and IN 551 do not have any existence outside the process patent IN 225 which also covers the composition. There is no claim by the Plaintiff that the Defendant is copying its process as per claim in 225. Further as noted above, there is no infringement of IN 551. The product covered by Defendants registration is outside the scope of the claims of the Plaintiff’s Patents, since several material and essential elements of the said claim (i.e. the stabilizer, absence of tallow soap as defoamer) are missing. In addition even the amount of wetting agents, dispersing agents and suspending agent is significantly higher in the product of the Defendant as compared to IN 551.
patent registrations are liable to be revoked.
Plaintiff claims that the suit patents protect a herbicidal composition consisting of ?
does not claim exclusivity over the combinations of sulfosulfuron and metsulfuror.
methyl but on the combination of the active ingredients together with the excepient?
decisions reported as S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannatli7 AIR (1994) SC 853; Bishwanatli Prasad Radhey Shy am v. Hindustan Metal Industries* (1979) 2 SCC 511; TenXC Wireless v. Mobile Antenna Technologies CS (OS) No. 1989/2010; TVS Motor Company v. Bajaj Auto (OSA Nos. 91 and 92 of 2008); UCB Farchim SA v. Cipla Ltd. & Os.9 2010 (42)’PTC 425; Warner Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis 520 U.S. 17 (1997); Jeniric/Pentron Inc. v. Dillion Company (205 F. 3d 1377); F. Hoffman-LA Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd. FAO (OS) 188/2008 and TecXC Wireless v. MoWfc Antenna Technologies CS (OS) No. 1989/2010 and Franz Xaver Huemerv. New Yash Engineers10 AIR 1997 Delhi 79.
(i) Claims define the territory or scope of protection (Section 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970).
(ii) There is no limit to the number of claims except that after ten claims there is an additional fee per claim (1st Schedule of the Act).
(iii) Claims can be independent or dependent.
(iv) The broad structure of set of claims is an inverted pyramid with the broadest at the top and the narrowest at the bottom (Manual of Patents Office-Practice and Procedure).
(v) Patent laws of various countries lay down rules for drafting of claims and these rules are used by Courts while interpreting claims.
(vi) One rule is that claims are a single sentence defining an invention or an inventive concept.
(vii) Different claims define different embodiments of same inventive concept.
(viii) The first claim is a parent or mother claim while remaining claims are referred to as subsidiary claims.
(ix) If subsidiary claims contain an independent inventive concept different from the main claim then the Patent Office will insist on the filing of a divisional application.
(x) Subject matter of claims can be product, substances, apparatus or articles; alternatively methods or process for producing said products etc. They may be formulations, mixtures of various substance including recipes. Dosage regimes or in some countries methods of use or treatment may also be claimed.
(xi) Where claims are ‘dependent’ it incorporates by reference ‘everything in the parent claim, and adds some further statement, limitations or restrictions’. (Landis on Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting).
(xiii) For someone wishing to invalidate a Patent the said person must invalidate each claim separately and independently as it is quite likely that some claims may be valid even while some are invalid.
(xiv) At the beginning of an infringement action the Courts in the United States conduct what is known as a ‘Markman hearing’ to define the scope of the claims or to throw light on certain ambiguous terms used in the claims. Although this is not technically done in India but functionally most Judges will resort to a similar exercise in trying to understand the scope and meaning of the claims including its terms.
claims asserted to be infringed.
Of these terms some are open ended, such as ‘comprising’ which means that if the claim contains three elements A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ it would still be an infringement for someone to add a fourth element ‘D’.
Further some terms are close ended such as ‘consisting of, i.e. in a claim of three elements, A ‘, ‘B’ and ‘C’ a Defendant would infringe if he has all three elements. In case the Defendant adds a fourth element ‘D’ he would escape infringement.
by another application with different claims and different priority dates, then if they were consolidated or cognate with another application, each claim would retain the original priority date [Section 11(1)].
laid down by the Division Bench in F. Hoffmann-La Roclie Ltd. (supra).
(k) Conditioning the resulting granules obtained in step (j), by passing the granules through an air chamber to get chemically stable synergistic herbicidal composition.
wherein Polyoxyethylene Sorbitan Fatty Acid Ester is Sorbitan Monooleate.
precipitated silica 60-70 per cent w/w of the total inert filler.
the Claims 1 to 8, wherein the stabilizer is hexamethylene tetramine.
of the Claims 1 to 9, wherein the defoamer is Silicon Oil Derivative.
the Claims 1 to 10, wherein the defoamer is Rhodorsil 426-R.
A chemically stable synergistic herbicidal composition substantially as herein described and illustrated with reference to the text and the examples.
A stable synergistic herbicidal composition, the composition comprising 5 to 10 per cent by weight of metsulfuron methyl, 70 to 80 per cent by weight of sulfosulfuron, 1 to 25 per cent w/w of inert fillers, 0.1 to 10 per cent w/w of a stabilizer, 0.1 to 1 per cent w/w of a defoamer, 0.1 to 5 per cent w/w of wetting and 0.10 per cent of dispersing and suspending agents.
The herbicidal composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the said stabilizer is hexamethylene tetramine.
selected from tallow soap, silicon oil derivative or a mixture thereof.
by weight of composition, sulfosulfuron active content about 75 per cent by weight of composition, 1 to 5 per cent w/w of inert fillers or a blend thereof, about 6.6 per cent w/w of a dispersant and about 0.2 per cent w/w of a defoamer.
cent of lignosulfonate and about 4.0 per cent of potassium polycarboxylate.
ammonium sulphate, precipitated silica or a mixture thereof.
and about 4.2 per cent of 3EO alkyl (Cp-Cn) ether sulfate.
about 0.1 per cent of a-alkyl (C10-C16)-u- hydroxypoly (oxyethylene) mixture.
75 per cent by weight of sulfosulfuron a.i.
(h) 0.1 per cent by weight of silicone defoamer (i) q.s. of filler (precipitated silica).
of the Plaintiff and Defendant are same.
metsulfuron methyl and the Defendants 5 per cent weight of metsulfuron methyl.
Defendant’s product registration consists of 75 per cent weight of sulfofulfuron.
is also missing in the Plaintiff’s suit patent IN 551.
be revoked under Section 64 shall be available as a ground for defence.
@ 25 gm a.i. ha”1.
maximum yield of wheat 4938 kg ha”1.
Table I: Effect of Sulfosulfuron alone and its combination with Metsulfuron on wheat and Associated weeds, winter 2001-2002.
Sulfosulfuron when used sequentially with metsulfuron offers maximum grain yield followed by Sulfosulfuron solo, Sulfosulfuron mixed with metsulfuron and metsulfuron solo.
mixed with metsulfuron and metsulfuron solo.
In particular, combination with fenoxaprop, fenoxaprop-P, isoproturon, diclofop, clodinafop, mixtures of clodinafop and cloquintocet, chlortoluron, methabenzthiazuron, imazemethabenz, tralkoxydim, difenzoquat, flamprop, flamprop-M, pendimethalin, mecoprop, mecoprop-P, MCPA, dichlorprop, dichlorprop-P, 2,4-D, dicamba, fluroxypyr, ioxynil, bromoxynil, bifenox, fluoroglycofen, lactofen, fomesafen, oxyfluorfen, ET-751, azoles according to WO 94/08999, F 8426, diflufenican, bentazon, metribuzin, metosulam, flupoxam, prosulfocarb, flurtamone, amidosulfuron, metsulfuron tribenuron, thifensulfuron, triasulfuron, chlorsulfuron, sulfonylureas according to WO 94/10154, sulfonylureas according to WO 92/13845, flupyrsulfuron (DPX-KE459), MON 48500, sulfusulfuron (MON37500), glufosinate, glufosinate-P or glyphosate are known.
Step No. 3 To impute to a normal skilled but unimaginative ordinary person skilled in the art what was common general knowledge in the art at the priority date.
Step No. 5 To decide whether those differences, viewed in the knowledge of alleged invention, constituted steps which would have been obvious to the ordinary person skilled in the art and rule out a hideside approach.
IA 9585/2017 is disposed of.

References: v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.