A recent legal dispute has arisen concerning the infringement of Indian Patent No. 384184, which relates to the "LIQUID COMPOSITION OF PENDIMETHALIN AND METRIBUZIN." The patent's primary objective is to introduce a convenient combination dosage form that exhibits enhanced efficacy, stability, and bio-equivalence of active ingredients when compared to their free combination.

Allegations by the Plaintiff:
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant obtained registration under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, commonly referred to as a "me-too" registration. Such registration is conditional upon the existence of a prior First Registration under Section 9(3) of the same Act. This condition implies the Defendant's awareness of the patented invention, suggesting that the Defendant's product incorporates a formulation identical to the one detailed in the Suit Patent.

Legal Implications:
The use of the "me-too" registration process by the Defendant raises legal implications. This type of registration is essentially an admission of the Defendant's awareness of the patented technology. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's product, having obtained this registration, contains a formulation mirroring the patented invention. This raises questions about the potential infringement of the Plaintiff's patent rights.

Ex-Parte Injunction:
In response to the alleged infringement, the court has granted an ex-parte injunction against the Defendants. This injunction restrains the Defendants from engaging in activities related to the production, sale, or distribution of the contested product. The basis for this injunction is the Defendants' holding of a "me-too" registration under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968.

Prima Facie Evidence of Infringement:
The ex-parte injunction serves as prima facie evidence supporting the Plaintiff's claim of patent infringement. The court's decision to grant the injunction suggests a preliminary determination that the Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. This is a critical development in the legal proceedings and indicates that the court acknowledges the validity of the Plaintiff's argument regarding the similarities between the patented invention and the Defendant's product.

Conclusion:
The legal dispute surrounding Indian Patent No. 384184 underscores the significance of protecting intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical and agricultural sectors. The case highlights the potential repercussions of obtaining a "me-too" registration and the serious legal consequences that may follow, including injunctions based on prima facie evidence of patent infringement.

As the case progresses, it will be interesting to observe how the court addresses the nuanced legal issues surrounding patent rights, infringement, and the validity of the Defendant's "me-too" registration.

The Case Law Discussed:
Case Title: Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd Vs Devender Kumar
Date of Judgement/Order:19.01.2024
Case No. CS Comm 55 of 2024
Neutral Citation: NA
Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Sanjeev Narula, H.J.

Disclaimer:
Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539