Court Rules Isolated Trap Purchases and Website Listings Insufficient to Establish Jurisdiction in SML Limited vs. Mohan & Company Case
In a significant judgment dated October 15, 2026, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Sandeep Sharma, dismissed the application for interim injunction filed by SML Limited against Mohan & Company and another, in a patent infringement dispute involving agricultural compositions. The Court emphasized the critical requirement of establishing territorial jurisdiction at the prima facie stage before granting interim reliefs.
SML Limited, a research-driven agrochemical company holding Indian Patent No. 282092 for a patented agricultural composition marketed under the brand name "TECHNO Z," alleged infringement by the defendants for manufacturing and selling a similar product named "ZeekaSulfTM." The plaintiff sought a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or distributing the allegedly infringing product within the jurisdiction of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
The defendants strongly contested the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, arguing that the plaintiff's claim was based on isolated trap purchases from an unauthorized retailer, Defendant No. 1, and mere listing of the product on Defendant No. 2's website without any proof of actual sales or delivery within the State of Himachal Pradesh. Defendant No. 2 further contended that it did not authorize Defendant No. 1 to sell the product in Himachal Pradesh and did not have any office or business presence in the State.
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the facts and applicable law, including the Patents Act, 1970, and the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, which regulates the sale of fertilizers such as the disputed product. It was noted that under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, retailers must obtain authorization from the Notified Authority by submitting a Memorandum of Intimation and a Certificate of Source to lawfully sell such products. The Court found no evidence that Defendant No. 2 supplied the product to Defendant No. 1 or issued the required authorization, rendering the alleged sales by Defendant No. 1 unauthorized.
Further, the Court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Asma Lateef v. Shabbir (2024), underscoring that a court must be prima facie satisfied of its jurisdiction before granting interim relief. The Court held that isolated invoices and trap purchases could not be relied upon to create territorial jurisdiction, especially where the manufacturer denied any sales or authorization in the State.
Regarding online sales, the Court clarified that mere listing of a product on a website accessible in Himachal Pradesh does not amount to carrying on business within the State. There was no evidence of any orders placed or delivered to buyers in Himachal Pradesh through the defendant's website. The Court cited several precedents, including Helsinn Healthcare SA v. AET Laboratories and Banyan Tree Holding Private Limited v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy, to reinforce that online presence alone does not confer jurisdiction absent proof of actual commercial transactions.
Given these considerations, the Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish territorial jurisdiction at the prima facie stage and therefore was not entitled to the interim injunction sought. The dismissal of the application leaves the merits of the patent infringement claim open for trial but underscores the necessity for plaintiffs to conclusively establish jurisdiction before seeking interim remedies.
This ruling serves as a critical precedent in patent infringement litigation, particularly involving regulated commodities and highlights the judiciary's cautious approach toward jurisdictional claims based on isolated or unauthorized transactions.
Bottom Line:
Patent infringement - Interim injunction - Territorial jurisdiction must be prima facie established before grant of interim relief - Isolated trap purchases from an unauthorized retailer and mere website listing without proof of actual sale/delivery within Himachal Pradesh do not confer territorial jurisdiction - Application for temporary injunction dismissed.
Statutory provision(s):
Patents Act, 1970 Section 43, Section 48; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Section 151, Section 19, Section 20(b); Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 Clauses 8(2) and 8(3)
SML Limited v. Mohan & Company, (HP) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3002563
