Court Recognizes Validity of Established Process Patents for 4-ADPA and Restrains Respondents from Misuse of Trade Secrets and Confidential Information
In a significant ruling dated October 7, 2026, the Calcutta High Court, presided by Justice Mr. Ravi Krishan Kapur, granted interim injunction in favour of NOCIL Ltd., a leading manufacturer of rubber chemicals, restraining Finorchem Ltd. and another respondent from infringing patents and misusing confidential information related to the manufacture of 4-Aminobibhenylamine (4-ADPA). The suit, filed by NOCIL Ltd., alleged infringement of three process patents and breach of a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) by a former employee now associated with Finorchem Ltd.
The Court underscored the importance of recognizing the validity of well-established and commercially exploited patents even at the interlocutory stage, despite the absence of a presumption of validity under the Patents Act, 1970. NOCIL Ltd. holds three patents, granted after rigorous examination processes both in India and abroad, covering unique processes for manufacturing 4-ADPA, a chemical intermediate used in rubber antioxidants.
The dispute arose when Finorchem Ltd. proposed to manufacture 4-ADPA using a process substantially similar to that patented by NOCIL Ltd. The second respondent, a former senior employee of NOCIL Ltd. who was bound by a confidentiality agreement, was alleged to have shared proprietary process details with Finorchem Ltd. The Court noted that the respondent's engagement with Finorchem Ltd. shortly after retirement and the lack of personal affidavits from him raised strong prima facie evidence of breach of confidentiality and misuse of trade secrets.
In examining the patent infringement claim, the Court analyzed the Environmental Impact and Risk Assessment (EIRA) reports submitted by both parties. The reports were found to be strikingly similar, reinforcing the petitioner's claim that the process used by Finorchem Ltd. mirrored the patented process. The Court rejected Finorchem Ltd.'s multiple inconsistent disclosures about their manufacturing process, including attempts to amend their patent application to create an illusion of difference, as dishonest conduct aimed at evading liability.
The Court further emphasized the "clear the way" principle, stating that any party intending to enter the market with a process that might be covered by an existing patent must proactively seek to remove legal obstacles through statutory remedies such as pre-grant or post-grant opposition or revocation proceedings before commencing manufacture. Finorchem Ltd.'s failure to do so was considered a significant factor against it.
Regarding the burden of proof, the Court observed that once NOCIL Ltd. demonstrated similarity of end products, the onus shifted to Finorchem Ltd. to prove that its process was different. Minor variations and trifling differences were to be disregarded if the essential inventive features were substantially similar. On the facts, Finorchem Ltd. failed to establish any credible challenge to the validity of NOCIL Ltd.'s patents or to show substantial difference in their process.
On the issue of breach of confidentiality, the Court held that breach of NDA and patent infringement claims are not mutually exclusive and can coexist. The NDA specifically covered the unique steps and methods for manufacturing 4-ADPA, and the former employee's failure to affirm pleadings and evasive conduct indicated misuse of confidential information. The Court found a prima facie case of breach of confidentiality and misappropriation of trade secrets.
Balancing the equities, the Court found that the petitioner had made out a strong prima facie case and that the balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable injury favoured granting the interim injunction. The Court restrained the respondents from manufacturing 4-ADPA using the patented process and from using any confidential information or trade secrets of the petitioner.
This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to process patents and trade secrets under Indian law and highlights the judiciary's role in safeguarding innovation and proprietary information in the industrial sector.
Bottom Line:
Patents Act, 1970 - Interim injunction in process patent infringement and breach of confidentiality action - Old and working process patents, long commercially exploited, though not carrying presumption of validity, deserve due weight at prima facie stage - Defendant must raise a credible challenge to validity and cannot rely on shifting, inconsistent disclosures of its process - Failure to "clear the way", striking similarity in EIRA reports, substantial identity/equivalence of process steps and dishonest conduct justified injunction - Ex-employee bound by NDA can be restrained from misuse of confidential information and trade secrets; breach of confidentiality and patent infringement are not mutually destructive.
Statutory provision(s):
Patents Act, 1970 Sections 12, 13(4), 25(1), 25(2), 48(b), 64, 104A, 105, 106, 107; Non-Disclosure Agreement (Contract Law principles)
NOCIL Ltd. v. Finorchem Ltd., (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2992607
