Crystal Crop Protection Ltd wanted a patent for a ready-to-use weed killer made by mixing two chemicals called halosulfuron-methyl and metribuzin in specific amounts to control weeds in crops like sugarcane. The patent office examined the application and rejected it after two opponents argued that the mixture was not a new invention, did not show any special extra power beyond what the two chemicals already do on their own, and was just an ordinary blend without real improvement. The company appealed to the High Court of Delhi. During the appeal one opponent asked to add old public records from America and research papers showing very similar weed-killer mixes already existed years before. The court first allowed those extra papers because they were important for deciding the case fairly. After hearing everyone and studying the old records, the judge found that the company’s own test results only proved better weed control when more chemicals were used, not because the two worked together in a surprising new way. Experts in farming chemicals would have easily thought of this mix from what was already known, so there was no inventive step. The mixture also fell under the rule that stops patents for simple combinations that just add up properties without synergy. The patent office order was clear, complete and correct, so the court saw no reason to change it.
Title: Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. Vs Assistant Controller of Patent and Design : Order date: 28 February 2026, Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 19/2023 & I.A. 20715/2025, Neutral Citation: None assigned, Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia.
Disclaimer: Do not 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
