Delhi High Court Rejects FMC's Plea to Block Natco Insecticide Over Patent Dispute

The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed an application by FMC Corporation seeking to restrain Natco Pharma Limited from manufacturing and selling its insecticidal product “Cyantraniliprole 10.26% OD.” FMC alleged that Natco's product used a chemical intermediate covered by Claim 12 of its patent IN'645, which is set to expire on December 6, 2025.A sinhle bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed the FMC's plea for interim relief on the ground that it failed to establish a prima facie case for interim relief in light of the credible validity challenge raised by Natco.FMC argued that the intermediate claimed in IN'645, specifically Claim 12, was being used by Natco in its product, and that interim relief was necessary to safeguard its patent rights until the trial concluded and the patent expired. Natco responded that it had already filed a revocation petition challenging the validity of Claim 12 and had earlier initiated declaratory suits and related proceedings that demonstrated a bona fide challenge to FMC's position. Natco also submitted evidence that it had begun manufacturing and had secured all required regulatory approvals. These factors, the company asserted, showed that FMC had not established a prima facie case for interim relief. The court agreed with Natco and held that the company had raised a strong and credible challenge to the validity of Claim 12. It noted that Natco had filed its revocation petition even before FMC instituted the present infringement suit. The court also observed that another FMC patent, IN'104, contained the same intermediate compound and had an earlier priority date, allowing it to operate as prior art against Claim 12 of IN'645.On a claim to claim comparison, the court found that the intermediate compound in Claim 12 of the IN'645 Patent was specifically claimed in the IN'104 Patent. In other words, the earlier patent claimed a specific chemical compound, while the later patent attempted to cover a broader version of the same compound. Explaining the legal position, the court stated that when a specific invention is already patented, a later broader claim covering that invention cannot be permitted because it would effectively extend the monopoly beyond the 20-year term. Referring to TenXC Wireless Inc. and Anr. v. Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Anr. v. Cipla Ltd., the court reiterated that “registration of a patent per se does not entitle a party to an injunction when a credible challenge has been raised to the patent, and that there is no presumption of a validity of a patent.”The court also accepted Natco's Gillette defence, which applies when a defendant is merely practising what an earlier and expired patent teaches. Since the key intermediate in Claim 12 of IN'645 was already claimed in FMC's earlier patent IN'104, which has expired, the court held that Natco's Gillette defence was prima facie valid. Concluding that FMC had not made out a case for interim relief and finding that the balance of convenience at this stage favoured Natco, the Court dismissed FMC's application for an interim injunction. Case Title: FMC Corporation & Ors. v. Natco Pharma LimitedCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1518 Case Number: CS(COMM) 607/2024 For the Plaintiff: Advocates Sandeep Sethi, Adarsh Ramanujan, Bitika Sharma, Aadya Chawla, George Vithayathil, S. L. Soujanya, Ahaana Singh Rana, Mrinalini Goyat and Parth Singh. For the Defendant: Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, with Sidhant Goel,Mohit Goel, Aditya Goel, Deepankar Mishra, Kartikeya Tandon and Avinash K. SharmaClick Here To Read/Download The Order

Delhi High Court Rejects FMC's Plea to Block Natco Insecticide Over Patent Dispute

Ayushi Shukla

Tags