26 三月 2018

Patent infringement – Prior study having contrary findings is not ‘prior art’

The Delhi High Court has held that the combination containing both Metsulfuron Methyl and Sulfosulfuron as prepared by the plaintiff was novel and not obvious. The uniqueness of plaintiff’s composition comprising of such compounds was that it was effective against both grassy and broad leaf weeds.

Allowing the interim injunction, against the defendants, the Court in UPL Ltd. v. Pradeep Sharma was of the view that the combination is not to be treated as prior art or prior public use as the findings here were contrary to the study of a prior research done on the same chemical combination.

It also observed that composition of products for registration of the herbicidal composition of the plaintiff and defendant were same, and that only difference between the products was absence of a stabilizer which cannot be considered as an essential ingredient.

Further, observing that plaintiff had a strong prima facie case in their favour, it was held that mere non-disclosure of the finding of the Insecticides Board by the plaintiff, prima facie cannot be held to be material suppression of facts and injunction refused on the said count.

Browse articles