JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J.

I.A. 8126/2022 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, by Plaintiffs)

1. This judgment shall dispose of the present application filed by the Plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The suit out of which the application arises has been filed seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendant and those acting on its behalf inter alia from infringing the patent rights of the Plaintiffs under Indian Patent No. 298645 (IN’645), by using directly or indirectly any process(s) covered by the said patent granted by the Controller of Patents, in favour of the Plaintiffs on 06.12.2005.

2. It is averred in the plaint that E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, a US based company, was granted the suit patent IN 298645 (IN ‘645) on 09.07.2018 under Section 43 of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) titled ‘METHOD FOR PREPARING N-PHENYLPYRAZOLE-1-CARBOXAMIDES’. By a confirmatory Assignment Agreement dated 01.05.2018, rights in the suit patent were assigned in favour of the Plaintiffs with effect from 01.11.2017 and the patent is currently valid and subsisting. The date of expiry of IN’645 is 06.12.2025 and indisputably, no pre-grant and/or post-grant opposition or revocation petition has been filed against IN’645, which fortifies the quality and strength of the suit patent.

3. From the narrative in the plaint, the factual score is that Plaintiff No. 1/FMC Corporation is a Company incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, United States of America, and Plaintiff No. 2/FMC Agro Singapore Pte. Ltd., is a Company registered under the laws of Singapore. Founded in 1883, Plaintiff No. 1 is engaged in the production and sale of chemicals including agrochemicals for more than a century and provides innovative and cost-effective solutions for enhancement of crop yield and quality by controlling a broad spectrum of insects, diseases etc., as well as in non-agricultural markets for pest control. It carries on business in several parts of the world. By virtue of the Assignment Agreements, each of the Plaintiffs is registered and recorded as patentee of the suit patent in the Register of Patents and conduct their agrochemical business in India through Plaintiff No. 3, which holds license to import and market the final product, ‘Chlorantraniliprole’ (CTPR).

4. IN’645, the suit patent, relates to a novel method for preparing anthranilic diamide insecticide compounds and a total of 12 claims have been granted in the suit patent. IN’645 discloses and claims inter alia, a method for preparing a compound of Formula 1 including CTPR, in particular claim 1. The said method involves combining (1) a carboxylic acid compound, (2) an aniline compound and (3) a sulfonyl chloride, to prepare or manufacture CTPR. Thus, in the patented method, a pyrazole carboxylic acid of Formula 2, an aniline of Formula 3 and sulfonyl chloride are combined (contacted) to prepare CTPR. The process of invention is depicted as follows:

5. It is further averred that from a document titled ‘Environmental Impact Assessment Report and Environment Management Plan’ (‘EIAR & EMP’), pertaining to environmental clearance, submitted by the Defendant to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, Plaintiffs learnt of the process adopted by the Defendant for synthesis of CTPR and a bare perusal of the same reflects that Defendant is employing the patented method, claimed by claims 1, 5 to 8 and 11 to prepare an identical product CTPR, thereby infringing the process of the suit patent. The scheme of synthesis of CTPR, as disclosed at internal page A-37 of the said Report and as brought forth in the plaint, is as follows:

6. On 23.05.2022, summons were issued to the Defendant in the suit and on the said date, while seeking time to file reply to the present application, learned counsel for the Defendant, on instructions, had stated that the Defendant does not intend to launch the product CTPR until th