This case concerns the alleged infringement of two process patents granted to the plaintiffs, Syngenta Limited and another, relating to the manufacture of a fungicide, Azoxystrobin. The primary issue revolves around the defendant, GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd., allegedly infringing the said patents through their processes for manufacturing similar products. The plaintiffs sought interim relief and compliance with terms agreed upon during proceedings.

Background:
Patents in Question: Indian Patent No. 278868: Relates to processes for preparing Azoxystrobin using DABCO as a catalyst. Indian Patent No. 271751: Relates to methods for preparing Azoxystrobin. These patents pertain to Syngenta's proprietary fungicide sold under the brand name "AMISTAR®."Interim Application: The plaintiffs initially sought an interim injunction to prevent the defendant from manufacturing or selling products infringing their patents.Scientific Advisor Appointment: To decide the interim relief, the court appointed a Scientific Advisor to inspect and analyze the defendant's processes.

Brief Facts of the Case:

• The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's manufacturing process infringed their patents for Azoxystrobin.
• A two-tier confidentiality club was constituted to ensure the secure handling of confidential information.
• Dispute arose regarding the defendant's refusal to share certain records with a Tier-II Confidentiality Club member nominated by the plaintiffs.
   

Issues Involved:

• Whether the defendant should share confidential documents with the plaintiffs' Tier-II Confidentiality Club representative.
• Whether the plaintiffs' application under Section 151 of the CPC was maintainable.
• Interpretation of Terms of Reference (ToR) and its implications on the parties.
   

Submission of the Parties:

Plaintiffs:

• Argued for access to records based on mutually agreed ToR.
• Highlighted the need for access to assist in preparing for the interim injunction.
• Submitted that their Tier-II member, Dr. Alan Whitton, complies with confidentiality rules.
   

Defendant:

• Opposed sharing confidential information, citing risks of misuse.
• Argued that the ToR limited access to Tier-I members unless otherwise agreed.
• Stated that the application was an attempt to conduct a "roving and fishing" inquiry.
   

Reasoning and Analysis by the Judge:

• Maintainability of the Application: The application was not for production of documents but to ensure compliance with the ToR. Hence, the application under Section 151 of CPC was deemed maintainable.
• Interpretation of ToR: The ToR allowed access to records by Tier-II members except for certain confidential details like supplier records. The court noted the explicit inclusion of Tier-II members for accessing certain information, demonstrating that any restrictions would have been explicitly mentioned in the ToR if intended.
• Confidentiality Club Rules: Dr. Whitton, the plaintiffs' Tier-II representative, was found to comply with the confidentiality requirements. His independent contractor status and lack of day-to-day involvement in Syngenta's operations ensured compliance with confidentiality norms.
• Section 104A of the Patents Act: The court clarified that sharing documents with Dr. Whitton would not violate Section 104A, as the defendant was still obligated to show non-infringement of the plaintiffs' patent.

Decision: The court directed the defendant to supply the required records (except supplier details) to the plaintiffs' Tier-II representative, Dr. Whitton, within two weeks. Dr. Whitton's access would be strictly for analysis and in compliance with his confidentiality affidavit.

Conclusion:
This judgment underscores the delicate balance courts must maintain in patent disputes between protecting confidential information and ensuring fair proceedings. The decision reinforced the importance of adhering to mutually agreed procedural safeguards while upholding transparency necessary for adjudication.

Case Title: Syngenta Limited Vs GSP Crop Science Private Limited

Date of Order:8th January 2025
Case Number:CS(COMM) 87/2020
Neutral Citation:2025:DHC:104
Name of Court:High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal

Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

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