{"id":22767,"date":"2026-04-27T07:18:27","date_gmt":"2026-04-27T07:18:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=22767"},"modified":"2026-04-27T07:21:29","modified_gmt":"2026-04-27T07:21:29","slug":"crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/","title":{"rendered":"Combinations of known ingredients is non patentable, in absence of unexpected enhancement"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"introduction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Patents protect new inventions that are useful, novel, and involve an inventive step. In the field of agrochemicals, companies often try to patent combinations of existing active ingredients, claiming they work better together than separately. This case highlights the challenges in obtaining patent protection for such combinations when prior publications already describe similar mixtures. The court examined whether a specific insecticidal formulation using fipronil and emamectin benzoate in a suspension concentrate (SC) form deserved a patent or whether it was anticipated by existing knowledge in the public domain.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Patent_Application_Details\" >Patent Application Details<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Claimed_Benefits\" >Claimed Benefits<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Technical_Specification\" >Technical Specification<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Examination_And_Opposition\" >Examination And Opposition<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Controller_Decision\" >Controller Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Appeal_Before_Delhi_High_Court\" >Appeal Before Delhi High Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Respondent_Arguments\" >Respondent Arguments<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Reasoning_Analysis_by_Delhi_High_Court\" >Reasoning: Analysis by Delhi High Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Lack_of_Novelty\" >Lack of Novelty<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#CN1969627_CN627\" >CN1969627 (CN&#8217;627)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#CN101019546_CN546\" >CN101019546 (CN&#8217;546)<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Lack_of_Inventive_Step_Obviousness\" >Lack of Inventive Step (Obviousness)<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Key_Prior_Art_Documents\" >Key Prior Art Documents<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Rejection_of_%E2%80%9CTeaching_Away%E2%80%9D_Argument\" >Rejection of \u201cTeaching Away\u201d Argument<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Test_for_Inventive_Step\" >Test for Inventive Step<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Other_Grounds\" >Other Grounds<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Procedural_Challenge\" >Procedural Challenge<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Judgements_With_Complete_Citation_And_Their_Context_Discussed\" >Judgements With Complete Citation And Their Context Discussed<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Key_Precedents_Referred_And_Applied_By_The_Court\" >Key Precedents Referred And Applied By The Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-23\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Biomoneta_Research_Pvt_Ltd_vs_Controller_General_Of_Patents_Designs_And_Anr_2023_SCC_OnLine_Del_1482\" >Biomoneta Research Pvt. Ltd vs Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Anr. (2023 SCC OnLine Del 1482)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-24\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Sterlite_Technologies_Ltd_v_HFCL_Ltd_2022_SCC_OnLine_Del_2895\" >Sterlite Technologies Ltd. v. HFCL Ltd. (2022 SCC OnLine Del 2895)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-25\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Agriboard_International_LLC_vs_Deputy_Controller_Of_Patents_And_Designs_2022_SCC_OnLine_Del_940\" >Agriboard International LLC vs Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs (2022 SCC OnLine Del 940)<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-26\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Context_In_Which_These_Citations_Were_Discussed\" >Context In Which These Citations Were Discussed<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-27\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Final_Decision_Of_The_Court\" >Final Decision Of The Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-28\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Point_Of_Law_Settled_In_The_Case\" >Point Of Law Settled In The Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-29\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/crystal-crop-patent-case-delhi-hc-novelty-inventive-step-prior-art\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p>The judgement provides a clear example of how Indian courts apply the tests of novelty (newness) and inventive step (non-obviousness) under the Patents Act, 1970. It is particularly useful for understanding how prior art documents from other countries (here, Chinese patents) can block a patent grant in India if they disclose the same or very similar invention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"factual-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"patent-application-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Patent_Application_Details\"><\/span>Patent Application Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Crystal Crop Protection Limited filed patent application No. 1607\/DEL\/2010 on July 8, 2010, titled \u201cInsecticidal Composition&#8221;. The invention claimed a broad-spectrum insecticide made by combining two active ingredients: fipronil (a phenyl-pyrazole insecticide that disrupts the insect nervous system) at exactly 3.5% w\/w and emamectin benzoate (an avermectin-class insecticide) at exactly 1.5% w\/w, formulated as a suspension concentrate (SC).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"claimed-benefits\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Claimed_Benefits\"><\/span>Claimed Benefits<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Synergistic effect \u2014 meaning the two chemicals together killed insects more effectively than the sum of their individual effects.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Control over both biting\/chewing insects (like Spodoptera, fruit borers, and Helicoverpa).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Effective against sucking insects (mites, leaf miners, and thrips).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Single, cost-effective, and environment-friendly product.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The company argued that this specific combination and formulation offered a synergistic effect \u2014 meaning the two chemicals together killed insects more effectively than the sum of their individual effects. It claimed the product controlled both biting\/chewing insects (like Spodoptera, fruit borers, and Helicoverpa) and sucking insects (mites, leaf miners, and thrips) in a single, cost-effective, and environment-friendly product. The appellant emphasised that no single prior product effectively handled such a wide range of pests without higher costs or environmental harm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"technical-specification\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Technical_Specification\"><\/span>Technical Specification<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Component<\/th><th>Type<\/th><th>Concentration<\/th><th>Function<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Fipronil<\/td><td>Phenyl-pyrazole insecticide<\/td><td>3.5% w\/w<\/td><td>Disrupts insect nervous system<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Emamectin Benzoate<\/td><td>Avermectin-class insecticide<\/td><td>1.5% w\/w<\/td><td>Controls various insect pests<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Formulation<\/td><td>Suspension Concentrate (SC)<\/td><td>&#8211;<\/td><td>Ensures stability and application efficiency<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>The complete specification highlighted lower dosage requirements, reduced residues, rain-fastness (not washing off easily), and better safety for non-target organisms. The independent Claim 1 specifically defined the composition with the exact percentages and SC form, while dependent claims covered adjuvants and their concentrations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"procedural-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"examination-and-opposition\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Examination_And_Opposition\"><\/span>Examination And Opposition<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>After filing, the application underwent examination. The First Examination Report (FER) was issued in 2017, and the applicant responded and amended claims in 2019. Between 2017 and 2021, four pre-grant oppositions were filed by different parties, including Respondent No. 3 (represented by Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman). The applicant replied to these oppositions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"controller-decision\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Controller_Decision\"><\/span>Controller Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>A hearing was held before the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs on November 23, 2021. On January 11, 2022, the Assistant Controller refused the application on three main grounds:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Lack of novelty (the invention was not new);<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Lack of inventive step (it was obvious to a skilled person);<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Non-patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act (mere new form of a known substance without enhanced efficacy).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"appeal-before-delhi-high-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appeal_Before_Delhi_High_Court\"><\/span>Appeal Before Delhi High Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The appellant filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the Controller\u2019s order lacked proper reasoning, failed to consider the synergistic effect, and misapplied the law on novelty and obviousness. The appellant relied on the Delhi High Court\u2019s earlier decision in Biomoneta Research Pvt. Ltd vs Controller General of Patents (2023 SCC OnLine Del 1482) to support the patentability of synergistic combinations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"respondent-arguments\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Respondent_Arguments\"><\/span>Respondent Arguments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Respondent No. 3 strongly defended the refusal, pointing out that multiple Chinese prior art documents already disclosed the same combination of fipronil and emamectin benzoate in similar concentrations and formulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"reasoning-analysis-by-delhi-high-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_Analysis_by_Delhi_High_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning: Analysis by Delhi High Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The court, through Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, carefully analysed the invention and the cited prior arts. It first summarised the problem the invention sought to solve and the claimed solution, including the alleged synergy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"lack-of-novelty\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Lack_of_Novelty\"><\/span>Lack of Novelty<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The court found that the invention lacked novelty primarily because of two Chinese documents:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"cn1969627-cn627\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"CN1969627_CN627\"><\/span>CN1969627 (CN&#8217;627)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Embodiment 5 explicitly disclosed a composition with exactly 3.5% fipronil and 1.5% emamectin benzoate.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Claim 8 described formulations as \u201csuspending agent\u201d (which corresponds to suspension concentrate\/SC).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The abstract and claims covered the same range of pests.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The court noted that the specific percentages fell within the broad ranges disclosed, and the SC form was expressly taught.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"cn101019546-cn546\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"CN101019546_CN546\"><\/span>CN101019546 (CN&#8217;546)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Example 5 again disclosed the identical 3.5% fipronil + 1.5% emamectin benzoate combination.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Co-toxicity coefficient showed synergy.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Mentioned possible formulations including aqueous emulsions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Document<\/th><th>Key Disclosure<\/th><th>Relevance<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>CN&#8217;627<\/td><td>Exact composition and SC formulation<\/td><td>Destroys novelty<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>CN&#8217;546<\/td><td>Same composition with synergy data<\/td><td>Confirms prior public knowledge<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>The court held that a single prior art document anticipating all essential features of the claim destroys novelty. Here, the exact active ingredients, their precise concentrations in one case, and the formulation type were already public knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Minor differences in other components (like the presence of synergists in some examples) did not save the claim, as the core combination was disclosed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"lack-of-inventive-step-obviousness\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Lack_of_Inventive_Step_Obviousness\"><\/span>Lack of Inventive Step (Obviousness)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Even if not entirely anticipated, the court found the invention obvious to a person skilled in the art (PSA). It examined several additional documents:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-prior-art-documents\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Prior_Art_Documents\"><\/span>Key Prior Art Documents<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>CN101066055A (CN&#8217;055) and CN101151970A (CN&#8217;970):<\/strong> These taught combinations of fipronil and emamectin benzoate (or its derivatives) in overlapping ratios, with adjuvants, and various formulations, including suspensions. They encouraged mixtures to reduce resistance and improve efficacy.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>CN1911037 (CN&#8217;037):<\/strong> Disclosed SC formulations of the same pair with ratios covering the claimed amounts, field trials showing good control, and synergy data.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>CN1579160 (CN&#8217;160):<\/strong> Explicitly taught synergistic pesticidal compositions of fipronil and emamectin benzoate in suspension form, with examples and preparation methods.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Document<\/th><th>Teaching<\/th><th>Impact on Inventive Step<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>CN&#8217;055 \/ CN&#8217;970<\/td><td>Combination with overlapping ratios<\/td><td>Suggests claimed composition<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>CN&#8217;037<\/td><td>SC formulations with synergy<\/td><td>Supports obvious formulation<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>CN&#8217;160<\/td><td>Explicit synergistic suspension compositions<\/td><td>Directly teaches invention<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>The court explained that combining teachings from these documents (all in the same technical field of crop protection) would obviously lead a skilled formulator to the claimed specific percentages and SC form.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>SC formulations were a standard, well-known type in the industry for water-based, environment-friendly delivery. The alleged synergy was also demonstrated or suggested in prior arts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"rejection-of-teaching-away-argument\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Rejection_of_%E2%80%9CTeaching_Away%E2%80%9D_Argument\"><\/span>Rejection of \u201cTeaching Away\u201d Argument<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The court rejected the argument of \u201cteaching away\u201d or improper mosaicing, noting that when documents disclose similar products in the same field, it reflects the state of the art rather than the impermissible combining of unrelated teachings (Sterlite Technologies Ltd v. HFCL Ltd, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2895).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"test-for-inventive-step\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Test_for_Inventive_Step\"><\/span>Test for Inventive Step<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>It also clarified the correct approach to inventive step, drawing from Agriboard International LLC vs Deputy Controller of Patents (2022 SCC OnLine Del 940):<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>(i) the prior art,<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>(ii) the claimed invention, and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>(iii) how a PSA would obviously bridge them.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The impugned order satisfied this test.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"other-grounds\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Other_Grounds\"><\/span>Other Grounds<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The court found it unnecessary to examine Section 3(d) (new form without enhanced efficacy) or sufficiency of disclosure once novelty and inventive step objections were upheld.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"procedural-challenge\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Challenge\"><\/span>Procedural Challenge<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>On the appellant\u2019s procedural challenge (alleged non-application of mind or copy-pasting), the court held that mere similarity in reasoning with opposition submissions does not invalidate the order if independent analysis is evident.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Here, the controller had examined each prior art in detail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"judgements-complete-citation-context\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgements_With_Complete_Citation_And_Their_Context_Discussed\"><\/span>Judgements With Complete Citation And Their Context Discussed<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-precedents-applied\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Precedents_Referred_And_Applied_By_The_Court\"><\/span>Key Precedents Referred And Applied By The Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The court referred to and applied several key precedents to guide its analysis:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"biomoneta-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Biomoneta_Research_Pvt_Ltd_vs_Controller_General_Of_Patents_Designs_And_Anr_2023_SCC_OnLine_Del_1482\"><\/span>Biomoneta Research Pvt. Ltd vs Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Anr. (2023 SCC OnLine Del 1482)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Cited by the appellant to argue that synergistic combinations of known ingredients can be patentable if they show unexpected enhancement.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The court distinguished it on facts, as the prior arts here already suggested or demonstrated synergy for the same pair.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"sterlite-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Sterlite_Technologies_Ltd_v_HFCL_Ltd_2022_SCC_OnLine_Del_2895\"><\/span>Sterlite Technologies Ltd. v. HFCL Ltd. (2022 SCC OnLine Del 2895)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Used to explain that using multiple documents disclosing similar products in the same field does not amount to impermissible &#8220;mosaicing&#8221;.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It reflects the cumulative state of the art.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"agriboard-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Agriboard_International_LLC_vs_Deputy_Controller_Of_Patents_And_Designs_2022_SCC_OnLine_Del_940\"><\/span>Agriboard International LLC vs Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs (2022 SCC OnLine Del 940)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Provided the three-step framework for assessing inventive step:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Step<\/th><th>Description<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>1<\/td><td>Prior art disclosure<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>2<\/td><td>Claimed invention<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>3<\/td><td>Obviousness to the PSA<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The court confirmed the controller followed this structured approach.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"context-of-citations\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Context_In_Which_These_Citations_Were_Discussed\"><\/span>Context In Which These Citations Were Discussed<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>These citations were discussed in the context of ensuring that patent refusals are reasoned, that obvious combinations in a crowded field like pesticides do not qualify for protection, and that synergy claims must be evaluated against existing disclosures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"final-decision\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_Of_The_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision Of The Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The Delhi High Court upheld the Assistant Controller\u2019s refusal order in its entirety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The court concluded that the claimed composition lacked both novelty and inventive step, making it unpatentable under the Patents Act.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It did not find any infirmity in the Controller\u2019s reasoning warranting interference or remand for fresh consideration.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"point-of-law-settled\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_Of_Law_Settled_In_The_Case\"><\/span>Point Of Law Settled In The Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>A specific selection of known active ingredients in precise percentages and a standard formulation type (like SC) does not automatically qualify for a patent if prior publications already disclose the same combination, similar ratios, and the formulation option.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Synergy, while potentially patentable in principle, must be genuinely unexpected and not suggested or shown in existing literature.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Controllers and courts must apply a structured analysis for inventive step, but when the field is well-developed and multiple documents point in the same direction, the invention is likely to be obvious.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Mere procedural arguments about \u201ccopy-pasting\u201d will not succeed if the final decision shows application of mind to the key issues.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The case underscores that patents are not granted for incremental or routine improvements in agrochemical formulations when the core idea is already in the public domain through foreign prior art.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Case Title<\/th><td>Crystal Crop Protection Limited Vs Sudpita Dey, Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs &amp; Ors.<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Date Of Order<\/th><td>08 April 2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Case Number<\/th><td>C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 86\/2022<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Neutral Citation<\/th><td>2026:DHC:2926<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name Of Court<\/th><td>High Court Of Delhi<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name Of The Honourable Judge<\/th><td>Justice Tushar Rao Gedela<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction Patents protect new inventions that are useful, novel, and involve an inventive step. In the field of agrochemicals, companies often try to patent combinations of existing active ingredients, claiming they work better together than separately. This case highlights the challenges in obtaining patent protection for such combinations when prior publications already describe similar mixtures.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":22766,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[5873],"tags":[28,5969],"class_list":{"0":"post-22767","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-trademark-law","8":"tag-top-news","9":"tag-trademark-laws"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Capture-7.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22767","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22767"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22767\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22936,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22767\/revisions\/22936"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22766"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}