Delhi High Court Grants Injunction to GSP Crop Science in Patent Infringement Case
- Nandini Mittal
- 1 hour ago
- 3 min read
In a landmark ruling that reinforces the breadth of patent protection in India, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of GSP Crop Science Ltd. in its patent infringement suit against the marketing entity of BR Agrotech. The judgement, dated July 25, 2025, permanently restrained the defendant from dealing in products infringing GSP’s Indian Patent No. 394568 (IN’568) and ordered payment of damages and costs.
Case Background
GSP Crop Science Ltd. (Plaintiff) holds IN’568, which claims a synergistic suspo-emulsion formulation of Pyriproxyfen in the range of 1-15% and Diafenthiuron in the range of 25-55%, along with specified excipients. The patented formulation, marketed under the brand “SLR 525” since 2018, has regulatory approval under Section 9(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and has proven particularly effective against pests such as Whiteflies on cotton crops and Tomato Leaf Miners.
The dispute arose when the plaintiff discovered that a product named “Roxyfin” containing 5% Pyriproxyfen and 25% Diafenthiuron, was being marketed by the defendant no. 2 and manufactured by BR Agrotech (Defendant no. 1). According to the plaintiff, the formulation matched its patented claims exactly. After obtaining an interim injunction, the plaintiff settled its case against defendant no. 1, which admitted infringement. The plaintiff then sought judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code against defendant no. 2.
Plaintiff’s Contentions
The plaintiff argued that IN’568 is a valid and subsisting patent, having survived seven pre-grant oppositions, two writ petitions, and rigorous examination by the Indian Patent Office. They maintained that Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970 (the Act), grants the plaintiff the exclusive right to prevent any third party from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the patented product without consent.
The plaintiff asserted that the CIBRC license obtained by defendant no. 1 under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act for “Roxyfin” was a “me-too” registration, effectively proving the product was identical to “SLR 525.” The plaintiff further emphasised that the defendant no. 2 had admitted in sworn affidavits to selling the infringing product in large volumes, over Rs. 4.45 crores in sales during two financial years, amounting to “textbook infringement.”
Defendant’s Contentions
Defendant no. 2 denied liability, claiming it was not the manufacturer but merely a marketing agent for defendant no. 1’s product, and that it acted in good faith without any collusion to infringe. It was further argued that the settlement entered into between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 encompassed all sale proceeds, including those arising from Defendant No. 2’s transactions, thereby extinguishing any independent cause of action against them.
It was further argued that the statements relied upon by the plaintiff referred to historical transactions and did not constitute the clear and unconditional admissions required for a judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.
Hon’ble Court’s Analysis
Justice Banerjee rejected defendant no. 2’s defences, holding that the affidavits contained unambiguous admissions of marketing and selling a product that fell squarely within the scope of IN’568. Referring to Section 48 of the Act, the Hon’ble Court held that infringement can arise from any of the acts of making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing the patented product without consent, and that marketers and sellers are equally liable.
The Hon’ble Court also noted that Order XII Rule 6 CPC is designed to deliver speedy justice when clear admissions leave no genuine triable issue. In this case, the admissions and the identical composition of the product rendered a full trial unnecessary.
The Final Order
The Hon’ble Court issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendant no. 2 from manufacturing, marketing, selling, or otherwise dealing in any product infringing IN’568. It awarded Rs. 50 lakhs in damages to the plaintiff, with 6% annual interest in case of delayed payment, and imposed Rs. 2 lakhs in costs payable to the Delhi High Court Bar Association’s Lawyers’ Welfare Fund.
Nandini Mittal
Associate
