Back to Home
InKnowBiz Associates — Intellectual Property Attorneys & AdvocatesTM
Back to Case Archive
PatentAllowed October 7, 2026

NOCIL Ltd v. Finorchem Ltd and Anr

IA NO: GA-COM/1/2024 In IP-COM/25/2024

Court
Calcutta High Court
Bench
Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
Outcome
Allowed
Date of judgment
10/7/2026

Statutory provisions

Section 12, Patents Act 1970 — Examination of applications by the patent officeSection 13(4), Patents Act 1970 — Search for anticipation not guaranteeing patent validitySection 25(1), Patents Act 1970 — Pre-grant opposition procedureSection 25(2), Patents Act 1970 — Post-grant opposition procedureSection 48(b), Patents Act 1970 — Rights conferred upon process patent ownersSection 64, Patents Act 1970 — Grounds for revocation of a patentSection 104A, Patents Act 1970 — Burden of proof in suits concerning process patentsSection 105, Patents Act 1970 — Suit for declaration of non-infringementSection 106, Patents Act 1970 — Remedies for groundless threats of infringement proceedingsSection 107, Patents Act 1970 — Defences available in infringement actions

Key issue

Whether the petitioner was entitled to an interim injunction restraining the respondents from infringing its process patents and breaching confidentiality after hiring a former senior employee bound by a non-disclosure agreement.

Summary

The petitioner sought an interim injunction to stop the respondents from infringing its granted process patents and exploiting trade secrets used to manufacture a chemical intermediate known as 4-ADPA. The petitioner discovered that the first respondent had engaged a retired senior technical employee of the petitioner who was contractually bound by a non-disclosure agreement covering the manufacturing process. Furthermore, environmental reports and patent filings submitted by the first respondent revealed nearly identical manufacturing steps and catalysts. The High Court allowed the interim application and restrained the respondents from using the patented processes or breaching confidentiality. The court emphasized that the defendant failed to present a credible challenge to invalidate the established patents and adopted inconsistent positions while attempting to mask substantial process equivalence. Result: Interim injunction application allowed; respondents restrained from infringing the process patents and using the petitioner's confidential information.

Tags

#process patent#patent infringement#trade secrets#breach of confidentiality#interim injunction#Section 104A#burden of proof#clearing the path#credible challenge
Judgment PDFOpen in new tab