The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused interim relief to SML Limited in its patent infringement suit against Happy Agro Chemicals and others. The SML Patent Jurisdiction Dispute concerned the agricultural micronutrient product “SELZIC”. Justice Sandeep Sharma held that the court must first decide territorial jurisdiction before examining the patent infringement claims.
Factual Background
SML holds an Indian patent granted in 2017 for an agricultural composition marketed as “TECHNO Z”.
The company says the formulation contains sulphur, zinc oxide, and an agrochemically acceptable excipient. According to SML, the composition improves plant physiology and crop yield.
SML alleged that the defendants’ product “SELZIC” infringed its patent. The company sought a permanent injunction and ₹1.02 crore in damages.
It also sought the destruction of the allegedly infringing stock. Further, SML requested an interim order preventing the defendants from manufacturing or selling the product.
The interim application came up for fresh consideration after a Division Bench set aside an ex parte injunction granted in January 2024. The Bench also allowed the defendants to file their response.
Therefore, the Single Judge had to reconsider whether SML qualified for interim relief. The court placed territorial jurisdiction at the centre of that inquiry.
SML’s Arguments On Territorial Jurisdiction
SML relied on three invoices to establish the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s jurisdiction. The invoices recorded purchases of “SELZIC” from a retailer in Rohru.
The company also relied on the defendants’ website and IndiaMART listings. SML argued that these listings showed the product’s availability for sale in Himachal Pradesh.
However, the defendants disputed this claim. They argued that they had never authorised the retailer to sell “SELZIC”.
They further alleged that SML had arranged the purchases only to create territorial jurisdiction. According to the defendants, such “trap purchases” did not represent genuine commercial transactions.
High Court’s Findings
At the interim stage, the court accepted the defendants’ jurisdictional objection.
The court noted that the first defendant had not specifically denied selling the product in Himachal Pradesh. The defendant also had not claimed that SML falsely added it to the suit only to create jurisdiction.
Despite this, the court concluded that SML had relied on the invoices mainly to invoke the court’s jurisdiction.
The court referred to Indovax Private Limited v. Merck Animal Health and Banyan Tree Holding Private Limited v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy.
It held that the three alleged trap purchases did not establish a prima facie case of territorial jurisdiction.
Moreover, the court held that an interactive website or online listing alone cannot establish jurisdiction. The plaintiff must show an actual commercial transaction within the State.
The court warned that isolated purchases arranged for litigation could encourage jurisdiction shopping. Instead, courts must consider transactions made during the ordinary course of trade.
Patent Infringement Claims Not Examined
Since SML failed to establish prima facie territorial jurisdiction, the court did not examine the alleged patent infringement at the interim stage.
The court clarified that it had not decided the merits of the patent dispute. Its observations remain limited to the interim application.
The SML Patent Jurisdiction Dispute will therefore continue on its merits without the interim findings affecting the main suit.
