Delivering judgment on 17 November 2025, Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed FMC’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC in CS(COMM) 607/2024, in which the company sought to stop Natco from using an intermediate compound claimed in Claim 12 of IN’645 for manufacturing Cyantraniliprole-based formulations.
Background
IN’645, titled “Method for Preparing N-Phenylpyrazole-1-Carboxamides”, claims both a process for preparing Cyantraniliprole and certain intermediate compounds, including “2-amino-5-cyano-N,3-dimethylbenzamide” (an intermediate derived from “Compound of Formula 3” under Claim 12). FMC alleged Natco’s Cyantraniliprole 10.26% OD formulation infringes this intermediate claim.
Natco admitted that it uses the impugned intermediate but argued that there is no infringement because the intermediate was already claimed and disclosed in FMC’s earlier Indian Patent IN 269104 (IN’104) and its PCT counterpart WO 03/062226, both of which have expired. It relied on the “Gillette defence”, contending it is merely practising prior art now in the public domain.
Natco had also filed a revocation petition (C.O. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 7/2023) targeting Claim 12 of IN’645 before FMC launched this quia timet infringement suit.
Court: No presumption of validity, credible challenge made out
Reiterating that there is no presumption of validity in Indian patent law and that even a granted patent can be challenged on multiple grounds, the Court held that at the interlocutory stage the defendant only needs to show “vulnerability” of the patent and raise a substantial, tenable challenge.
After analysing the rival technical and legal submissions, Justice Pushkarna concluded that:
- Claim 12 of IN’645 is prima facie anticipated by prior claiming under Section 64(1)(a), since the same intermediate compounds are claimed in IN’104, which enjoys an earlier priority date of 22 January 2002.
- The claim is also vulnerable on the ground of prior publication under Section 64(1)(e) in view of the disclosure in WO 03/062226, to which IN’104 traces its origin.
- Natco’s Gillette defence is “prima facie tenable” because IN’104 has already expired (January 2023), and Natco’s process falls within that prior art that is now in the public domain.
On this basis, the Court held that Natco had “set out a credible challenge to the validity of Claim 12 of IN’645” and that the requirements for prior claiming and prior publication were satisfied at the interim stage, disentitling FMC to an injunction.
Balance of convenience in Natco’s favour
On balance of convenience and irreparable harm, the Court noted that:
- Natco had already commenced commercial production and marketing of Cyantraniliprole 10.26% OD in April 2025 and had invested “several crores” in infrastructure, regulatory compliance and commercial arrangements.
- The suit patent IN’645 is due to expire on 6 December 2025, leaving less than two months of term at the time of judgment.
- Any loss to FMC, which monetises its invention by importing and licensing products in India, would be purely monetary and compensable by damages if it ultimately succeeds at trial.
Given that Natco had “cleared the way” by filing a revocation petition and a non-infringement action before entering the market, and in light of the impending expiry of the patent, the Court held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of Natco.
Injunction refused, directions on disclosure
Accordingly, the interim injunction application (I.A. 34151/2024) was dismissed. The Court directed Natco to continue placing on record details of the quantity and value of product manufactured and sold, along with revenues, so that FMC’s claim for damages can be addressed if it ultimately succeeds at trial.
The main suit CS(COMM) 607/2024, along with the connected revocation petition, has been listed before the roster bench for further directions on 24 November 2025.
Source: Judgement Copy