IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
FMC Corporation - Appellant
Versus
GSP Crop Science Private Limited - Respondent
CS(COMM) 662 of 2022, I.A. 15628 of 2022 and 16508 of 2022
Decided On : 14-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of plaintiffs and patent details (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. details of the patent infringement claim and process (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's interim directions regarding proceedings (Para 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. arguments from the defendant regarding patent validity (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. historical context of prior litigations concerning ctpr (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. insights on patent complexities and potential for monopolies (Para 26 , 27 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. principles regarding prior claiming and invalidity (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 8. conclusions about the suit patent's validity (Para 70 , 71) |
| 9. final judgment and ruling on the plaintiff's request (Para 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
I.A.15628/2022 (u/O XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC)
Brief Facts
2. The present is a suit filed by Plaintiff No.1 - FMC Corporation, USA and its two group companies i.e., Plaintiff No. 2 - FMC Agro Singapore Pvt. Ltd and Plaintiff No.3 - FMC India Pvt. Ltd. seeking inter alia, an injunction restraining the infringement of Indian Patent No. IN252004 titled "Method for Preparing Fused Oxazinones from Ortho-Amino Aromatic Carboxylic Acid and a Carboxylic Acid in the presence of a Sulfonyl Chloride and Pyridine" (hereinafter "IN.004/suit patent") by the Defendant-GSP Crop Science Private Limited.
3. The Plaintiffs are companies engaged in the manufacture, marketing and sale of chemicals including agro chemicals. They carry on business in India and several other countries of the world.
4. The pleaded case is that Plaintiff No.1 was founded in 1883 as Bean Spray Pump Company by John Bean, who developed the first piston-pump insecticide sprayer. Thereafter, in 1928 Bean Spray Pump purchased Anderson-Barngrover Co. and Sprague-Sells Co. and changed its company name to Food Machinery Corporation (FMC). Over the years it expanded its areas of business in India and around the world to various sectors including defense, gold mining, tractors etc.
5. Plaintiff No.1 was divided in 2001 into two separate, publically traded companies - a machinery business (FMC Technologies) and a chemicals business (FMC Corporation). On 31st December, 2001, FMC Corporation completed the spin off of FMC Technologies.
6. As per the Plaintiffs, in November, 2017, Plaintiff No. 1 along with its subsidiary company i.e. Plaintiff No. 2 acquired a significant portion of the Crop Protection business of E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company (hereinafter `Du Pont'). This acquisition included certain physical and IP assets around the world. One of the patents acquired by the Plaintiffs from Du Pont is the suit patent. The said patent was acquired vide assignment agreements with an effective date of 1st November, 2017 and was duly assigned to the Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2.
7. The present suit patent relates to an intermediate stated to be used in the manufacture of one of the products sold by the Plaintiffs i.e. Chlorantraniliprole (`CTPR'), which is an insecticide product. The suit patent is a process/method patent, originally filed in the name of the Plaintiffs' predecessor Du Pont and thereafter assigned to the Plaintiffs vide the aforementioned assignment agreement. The bibliographic details of the suit patent are as under:
| Indian Patent No | IN 252004 |
| Application No | 3877/DELNP/2004 |
| Title | "Method for Preparing Fused Oxazinones from Ortho-Amino Aromatic Carboxylic Acid and a Carboxylic Acid in the presence of a Sulfonyl Chloride and Pyridine" |
| Applicant | E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY |
| Date of filing in India | 07.12.2004 |
| International Application No | PCT/US2003/023821 |
| International filing date | 29.07.2003 |
| Priority Dates | 31.07.2002; 11.02.2003 |
| WO Publication No | WO 2004/011447 A1 published on 05.02.2004 |
| Section 11A Publication | 20.11.2009 The application was published in the official gazette issued by the Patent Office thereby being open for public to file pre-grant opposition. |
| Date of Grant | 20.0 |







![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() |
![]() | ![]() |


Patent is prima facie invalid due to prior claiming and non-working, infringing on patent system integrity by prolonging monopoly post-expiration.
Validity of specific patents is upheld while assessing distinctions between coverage and disclosure, emphasizing protection of intellectual property rights against infringement.
Intellectual Property right - Infringement of Indian patents - It is also a well settled position in law that damages are entirely insufficient as panacea for holder of a valid patent, which is infri....
The court's decision emphasized the importance of maintaining accounts of manufacture and sales in patent infringement cases and highlighted the need to consider the status of the suit patent and the....
The scope of patent claims is defined by the claims themselves; any pharmaceutical composition containing the claimed ingredients constitutes infringement, regardless of the specific formulation.
Interim injunctions in patent cases require a prima facie case; valid disclosure of patents must be clear, and a patentee cannot claim multiple patents for the same invention without significant diff....
The scope of an invention is defined and determined by the granted claims.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.