Thursday, April 16, 2026

Crystal Crop Protection Limited Vs Sudpita Dey, Assistant Controller of Patents

In a patent dispute involving agricultural chemicals, Crystal Crop Protection Limited approached the Delhi High Court after the Assistant Controller of Patents rejected their application for an insecticidal composition made with specific amounts of two well-known active ingredients, Fipronil and Emamectin Benzoate, in a suspension concentrate form.

The company had filed the patent application back in 2010, arguing that this particular mix provided better pest control across a wide range of crop-damaging insects at lower doses, reduced costs, and was kinder to the environment compared to separate products already on the market.

Several opponents filed pre-grant challenges between 2017 and 2021, and after hearings the controller turned down the patent in January 2022, saying the invention was not new, did not involve any inventive step, and failed other legal tests under the Patents Act.

Crystal Crop Protection claimed the controller’s order simply copied the opponents’ arguments without giving proper independent reasons and asked the court to quash the refusal and send the application back for a fresh look.

After examining the complete file, the prior Chinese patents cited by the opponents, and the arguments from both sides, the High Court found that the controller’s conclusions on lack of novelty and lack of inventive step were fully reasoned and supported by evidence—the earlier documents already described very similar combinations of the same two ingredients in comparable strengths and forms.

The court therefore saw no reason to interfere with the refusal and held that the invention did not qualify for patent protection. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

Crystal Crop Protection Limited Vs Sudpita Dey, Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs:08.04.2026:C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 86/2022:2026:DHC:2926:Hon'ble Justice Shri Tushar Rao Gedela.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

No comments:

Post a Comment

Blog Archive

Featured Post

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING IN ORDER TO PROVE THE TRADEMARK  REGISTRA...

My Blog List

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Search This Blog