Delhi High Court Awards ₹50 Lakh Damages to GSP Crop Science in Patent Infringement Suit Against BR Agrotech and Marketer

In a significant ruling on patent infringement in the agrochemical sector, the Delhi High Court decreed a suit filed by GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. against BR Agrotech Limited and another defendant for infringing Indian Patent No. 394568 (IN’568). The court ordered one of the defendants to pay ₹50 lakh in damages and reaffirmed that sellers can be held liable for patent infringement even if they are not involved in manufacturing the infringing product.

GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd., headquartered in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, specializes in manufacturing and selling agrochemicals. The company has invested extensively in research and development, securing over 70 patents, including IN’568 granted in 2022 after filing in 2014. This patent covers a synergistic suspo-emulsion formulation combining Pyriproxyfen (1% to 15%) and Diafenthiuron (25% to 55%) with specific excipients, along with a preparation process. The formulation offers enhanced stability and efficacy against pests such as whiteflies on cotton and tomato leaf miners. GSP commercialized this patented product as SLR 525 (containing 5% Pyriproxyfen and 25% Diafenthiuron) since 2018, obtaining regulatory approval under Section 9(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968.

Between 2022 and 2023, GSP discovered an infringing product named Roxyfin, a suspo-emulsion with an identical composition (5% Pyriproxyfen and 25% Diafenthiuron). Roxyfin was manufactured by BR Agrotech Limited (Defendant No. 1) under a Section 9(4) registration and marketed by the second defendant (Defendant No. 2). GSP filed suit alleging patent infringement, seeking injunctions and damages, asserting that the defendants’ actions violated its exclusive rights under the Patents Act, 1970.

The court had earlier granted an interim injunction in February 2023, which was made absolute in July 2024 against Defendant No. 2 following a settlement with BR Agrotech in March 2023. Subsequently, GSP applied under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for judgment on admission against Defendant No. 2, based on admissions in affidavits and statements acknowledging the sale of the infringing product.

Key issues before the court included whether Defendant No. 2’s admissions constituted clear and unequivocal acknowledgments warranting judgment without trial, and whether selling the infringing product amounted to patent infringement under Section 48 of the Patents Act, even without manufacturing involvement.

GSP argued that its patent IN’568 was valid, having survived seven pre-grant oppositions and two writ petitions, granting it exclusive rights to prevent third parties from making, using, selling, or importing the claimed formulation. The company contended that Roxyfin directly infringed the patent claims, as BR Agrotech’s Section 9(4) registration mirrored GSP’s approved product.

GSP highlighted Defendant No. 2’s affidavits dated April 13, 2023, and May 2, 2023, where it admitted purchasing and selling Roxyfin, providing sales figures of ₹2,20,23,600 for 2021-2022 and ₹2,24,82,000 for 2022-2023. GSP asserted these admissions were plain and unequivocal under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, entitling it to judgment without trial. It cited precedents such as Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India and Delhi Jal Board v. Surendra P. Malik, which empower courts to decree suits on unambiguous admissions.

Defendant No. 2 countered that it was merely an honest marketer without collusion in infringement, as BR Agrotech held the manufacturing license under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. It argued that the suit was not maintainable against it post-settlement with BR Agrotech and that its statements were contextual admissions of past sales, not unequivocal or intentional infringement. Defendant No. 2 claimed the admissions were conditional, denying any future intent to infringe, and pointed to denials in its written statement as grounds for a trial. It further alleged that GSP’s application was mala fide, aimed at pressuring withdrawal of its post-grant opposition against the patent.

The court observed that patent IN’568 validly claimed a suspension-emulsion of Pyriproxyfen (1-15%) and Diafenthiuron (25-55%), commercialized as SLR 525, and that Roxyfin matched this composition exactly, as confirmed by infringement mapping.

It noted Defendant No. 2’s affidavits explicitly admitted marketing and selling Roxyfin with detailed sales data, constituting clear admissions under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

The court analyzed Section 48 of the Patents Act, emphasizing that it prohibits third parties from “making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing” patented products. The use of “or” indicates that independent acts like selling alone constitute infringement, without requiring manufacturing or collusion.

Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Sanjeev Gupta, the court held sellers liable for infringement. It found Defendant No. 2’s defenses untenable, as admissions were unambiguous and not conditional, and that post-grant opposition did not absolve infringement liability. The court invoked precedents like Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India to decree the suit, preventing misuse of judicial process.

The court allowed GSP’s application, decreeing the suit against Defendant No. 2 with a permanent injunction restraining it, its agents, and affiliates from dealing in any infringing suspo-emulsion containing Pyriproxyfen (1-15%) and Diafenthiuron (25-55%). It awarded ₹50 lakh in damages to GSP and ₹2 lakh in costs payable to the Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund, with 6% interest on damages if unpaid within six weeks.

This ruling underscores the liability of sellers in patent infringement cases under Indian law, reinforcing patent holders’ rights in the agrochemical industry.

Citation: GSP Crop Sci. Pvt. Ltd. v. BR Agrotech Ltd., CS(COMM) 82/2023, High Court of Delhi (July 25, 2025). Available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37775015/