Case Name: NOCIL Ltd. v. Finorchem Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: IA No. GA-COM/1/2024 in IP-COM/25/2024
Date of Judgment: 7 October 2026
Date of Hearing: 16 September 2026
Court: High Court at Calcutta, Intellectual Property Rights Division, Original Side.
Quorum: Single Judge Bench – Hon’ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur.
FACTS:
NOCIL Ltd. It is one of India’s largest manufacturers of rubber chemicals. The company has invested a substantial amount of money in research and development of innovative products and various manufacturing methods. In 2012, NOCIL developed a unique and improved industrial process for manufacturing a chemical called 4-ADPA, which is an important compound used in making antioxidants for rubber and polymer products. The company subsequently worked diligently to improve the efficiency and other important features of its manufacturing process. NOCIL obtained three patents relating to different processes for manufacturing 4-ADPA (Patent Nos. 341922, 366559, and 389262). These patents gave the company exclusive legal rights over the manufacturing process protected by their claims. The company even had corresponding US patents for two of these inventions. Respondent No.2 joined NOCIL in 1987 as a production supervisor and was later promoted to Deputy General Manager- Process Technology. He was later transferred to NOCIL’s Dahej plant as head of operations and was involved in developing and implementing the new manufacturing process for 4-ADPA. Respondent No.2 had signed an NDA with NOICL on 11th May 2012, where he legally promised the company that he would not reveal or misuse the company’s confidential manufacturing information. But Respondent No. 2 retired from NOICL on 30th September 2020 and after leaving the company, he became associated with Respondent No.1 (Finorchem Ltd). NOICL discovered that Finorchem was planning to establish a plant to manufacture the same chemical (4-ADPA) through an Environmental Impact and Risk Assessment Report (EIRA) submitted by the company for its proposed plant. It also suspected that its former employee had shared confidential technical information with Finorchem. NOICL sent several notices and made inquiries regarding the proposed manufacturing process used by the Respondents’ company, but each time got evasive replies. The Respondents even filed caveats before different courts after receiving notices from NOICL. On 19th April 2024, Finorchem applied for a patent related to the manufacture of 4-ADPA. On 26th November 2025, the court directed the company to provide proof of the process it was using or proposing to use to manufacture the chemical. On 6th February 2026, the company applied to amend its patent application, the court noticed that Finorchem repeatedly changed the way it described its manufacturing process. NOICL approached the court seeking interim protection to prevent the respondents from infringing its patents and misusing its confidential information.
LEGAL QUESTIONS :
- Whether Finorchem Ltd. had infringed NOICL’s registered process patents by adopting a substantially similar manufacturing process for producing 4-ADPA?
- Whether Finorchem has raised a credible challenge towards the validity of NOCIL’s patents which are sufficient enough to resist the grant of an interim injunction?
- Whether section 104 A of the Patent Act, 1970 was applicable, thereby requiring Finorchem to prove that its manufacturing process was different from the patented manufacturing process of NOICL?
- Whether Respondent No.2 who was the former employee of NOICL had breached his NDA by disclosing NOICL’s confidential technical information and trade secret ?
- Whether Finorchem had knowingly procured the breach of confidentiality by employing Respondent No.2 and using NOICL’s confidential information?
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
- Section 48 b- it protects the owner’s exclusive rights over a patented process. Stops others from using that process without permission
- Section 64- it provides the grounds for cancellation of a patent.
- Section 104 A – in certain process patent cases, it shifts the burden to the defendant to prove that the process is different from the patented process of the petitioner.
- Section 107- allows the defendant to challenge the patent’s validity as a defence.
- Section 25 (2) – Allows an interested person to oppose a patent after it has been granted.
- Trademark Act 1999, section 31- it states that registration is prima facie evidence of the validity of a trademark.
- Section 106- it deals with the legal relief against unjustified threats of patent infringement proceedings.
ARGUMENTS :
PETITIONER – NOCIL argued that Finorchem was attempting to use a manufacturing process which was substantially and starkly similar to its patented 4-ADPA process, thereby infringing its existing patents. It firmly contended that its patent had undergone extensive examination and had been commercially used for several years, whereas the respondent’s company had failed to establish any credible challenge to their validity. NOCIL further argued that the respondent had not properly disclosed its manufacturing process and had repeatedly changed or evaded its explanation to create an artificial difference from NOCIL’S patented process. It also challenged that Respondent No. 2, who had access to confidential technical information, had breached his NDA by sharing trade secrets with the respondent’s company.
RESPONDENT – Finorchem argued that merely obtaining a patent does not automatically establish its validity and also raised a challenge based on the existing prior art and differences in its manufacturing process. It also argued that section 104 a of the Patent Act was not applicable in the manner claimed by NOCIL. Respondent number 2 separately denied having access to or misusing any confidential information, strictly claiming that he was not directly involved in the invention and was not even named as an inventor in the petitioner’s patent.
ANALYSIS:
The court took a balanced but firm approach by protecting NOCIL’s patent and confidential information. It observed that the petitioner’s patent had undergone extensive examination and had been commercially used for several years. Although a registered patent does not automatically establish validity, the court considered its long-standing use as an important factor in this case. Finorchem, on the other hand, failed to raise a credible challenge to the patent and gave an inconsistent explanation about its own manufacturing process. The court also found that the 2 companies’ EIRA reports were strikingly similar and the differences appeared to be very minor. It further noted that the respondent number 2 had access to NOCIL’s confidential technical information and was bound by an NDA, thereby his subsequent engagement with the respondent’s company along with the surrounding circumstances supported NOCIL’s allegation of misuse of confidential information.
CONCLUSION:
The court granted interim protection in favour of NOCIL, finding a strong prima facie case, along with the balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable harm. The decision strongly reinforces that patent rights and trade secrets cannot be misused through minor technical changes or unauthorised disclosure. However, the final question of infringement remains open for determination at the trial.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY; Krittika Sengupta
