Introduction: The case of Crystal Crop Protection Limited vs Safex Chemicals India Limited and Others is a significant patent infringement dispute adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi. The plaintiff, Crystal Crop Protection Limited, sought to protect its registered patent for a weedicidal formulation, alleging that the defendants, Safex Chemicals India Limited and its associated entities, infringed the patent by manufacturing and selling products with identical compositions. The dispute centered on an interim injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which was ultimately dismissed by the court. This case study provides a comprehensive analysis of the factual and procedural background, the issues involved, the submissions of the parties, the judicial reasoning, and the final decision, along with the legal principles established.
Detailed Factual Background: Crystal Crop Protection Limited, a prominent Indian company engaged in the manufacture and sale of agrochemicals, including pesticides, insecticides, weedicides, and herbicides, claimed ownership of patent no. 417213, titled "Weedicidal Formulation and Method of Manufacture thereof." The patent, filed on March 9, 2010, and granted on January 9, 2023, pertains to a novel composition comprising Clodinafop-Propargyl 9% and Metribuzin 20% in a ratio of 1:2.2, combined with a surfactant, a dyeing agent or pigment, and a safener. This formulation was designed to enhance weed control in wheat crops, reduce phytotoxicity, and improve crop yield, with the dyeing agent or pigment ensuring visible application for effective use. The plaintiff markets this patented product under the trademark "ACM-9" and has achieved significant commercial success, with annual sales exceeding Rs. 2,400 Crores in the financial year 2022-2023.
In January 2024, the plaintiff discovered that Safex Chemicals India Limited (defendant no. 1) was manufacturing and selling a product named "RACER," which, upon laboratory testing, was found to contain Clodinafop-Propargyl 9%, Metribuzin 20%, and a safener, identical to the plaintiff’s patented formulation. Further investigation revealed that Indo Swiss Chemicals Limited (defendant no. 2) and Smith N Smith Chemicals Limited (defendant no. 3), entities associated with Safex Chemicals, were also offering products named "Trophy" and "Jodi No.1," respectively, with the same composition. The plaintiff alleged that these products infringed its patent and sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or marketing these products.
The suit patent faced legal challenges, including four pre-grant oppositions, all of which were dismissed by the Controller of Patents. Two writ petitions challenging the patent’s grant were also resolved: one was withdrawn, and the other was dismissed on January 8, 2024. A post-grant opposition by the Haryana Pesticides Manufacturers Association was pending but did not affect the patent’s validity or the plaintiff’s enforcement rights.
Detailed Procedural Background: The plaintiff filed the suit (CS(COMM) 196/2024) along with an interim injunction application (I.A. 5255/2024) under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, seeking to restrain the defendants from infringing the suit patent. On March 12, 2024, the predecessor bench issued summons in the suit and notice in the interim injunction application. The court directed the defendants to disclose their product’s composition in their reply and ordered the plaintiff to file an affidavit clarifying the functional role of the dyeing agent or pigment in the suit patent, specifically addressing whether its absence in the defendants’ products would constitute infringement of Claim 1.
The defendants filed their reply to the interim injunction application on July 29, 2024. The court heard arguments on November 28, 2024, January 23, 2025, February 27, 2025, and March 24, 2025, when the judgment was reserved. Both parties submitted written arguments, expert reports, affidavits, and scientific journals to support their claims. The defendants also filed a counterclaim (CC(COMM) 28/2024) seeking revocation of the suit patent, challenging its validity on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. The court, however, focused primarily on the interim injunction application and the issue of infringement at this stage.
Issues Involved in the Case: The primary issues before the court were:
Whether the defendants’ products ("RACER," "Trophy," and "Jodi No.1") infringed the plaintiff’s suit patent by replicating its claimed composition?Whether the absence of a dyeing agent or pigment in the defendants’ products constituted non-infringement, given its inclusion as an essential element in the suit patent’s claims?
Plaintiff’s Submissions: The plaintiff argued that its suit patent was valid, having overcome pre-grant oppositions and writ petitions, and was commercially successful under the "ACM-9" brand. The defendants’ products, containing Clodinafop-Propargyl 9%, Metribuzin 20%, and a safener, were identical to the patented formulation, constituting clear infringement. The plaintiff emphasized that the dyeing agent or pigment, described as an adjuvant, was not essential to the invention’s core function of weed control. In its affidavit, the plaintiff’s expert, Mr. Satish Kumar Chalna, stated that the dyeing agent or pigment merely enhanced visibility during application and did not materially affect the formulation’s efficacy. The plaintiff contended that, under the Doctrine of Equivalents, the defendants’ products infringed the suit patent by performing substantially the same function, even if the dyeing agent was absent.
The plaintiff relied on three judgments to support its case: Sotefin SA v. Indraprastha Cancer Society & Research Center: The plaintiff cited this case to argue that infringement could be established under the Doctrine of Equivalents if the defendants’ products included most essential elements of the patented invention, even if minor elements were omitted. UPL Limited v. Pradeep Sharma: The plaintiff referenced this case to assert that the absence of a non-essential component (like the dyeing agent) did not preclude a finding of infringement, as long as the core function of the invention was replicated. SNPC Machines (P) Ltd. v. Vishal Choudhary: The plaintiff used this case to argue that the pith and marrow of the invention—effective weed control—was achieved by the defendants’ products, regardless of the dyeing agent’s absence.
Defendants’ Submissions: The defendants argued that their products did not infringe the suit patent because they lacked the dyeing agent or pigment, an essential element explicitly claimed in the patent. They contended that the dyeing agent was critical to the invention’s objective of ensuring visible application, as highlighted in the patent’s complete specification. The defendants’ expert evidence supported their claim that the absence of the dyeing agent fundamentally altered the composition, rendering it non-infringing. They further argued that the plaintiff’s reliance on the Doctrine of Equivalents was misplaced, as the dyeing agent was not a trivial or substitutable component but a deliberate inclusion to address a specific problem in prior art.
The defendants also challenged the validity of the suit patent in their counterclaim, alleging lack of novelty and inventive step. However, they emphasized that the court should focus on non-infringement at the interim stage, as the absence of the dyeing agent was sufficient to dismiss the injunction application. The defendants asserted that granting an injunction would cause them irreparable harm, while the plaintiff could be compensated through damages if it succeeded at trial.
The plaintiff relied on the following judgments, which the court analyzed in the context of the present case:
Sotefin SA v. Indraprastha Cancer Society & Research Center (2022 SCC OnLine Del 4299): In this case, the defendant’s product included 17 out of 19 elements of the plaintiff’s patent claim. The court, relying on a report from independent scientific advisors, applied the Doctrine of Equivalents and found infringement because the omitted elements were not essential to the invention’s central purpose. The court in the present case distinguished Sotefin, noting that the dyeing agent or pigment was an essential element of the suit patent, explicitly claimed and tied to the invention’s objective of visible application. Additionally, unlike Sotefin, no independent scientific advisor’s report was available in this case.
UPL Limited v. Pradeep Sharma (2020 SCC OnLine Del 1770): This case involved an agrochemical formulation where the defendant’s product lacked a stabilizer. The court held that the stabilizer was not essential, as its absence did not affect the formulation’s core function. The court in the present case distinguished UPL, observing that the dyeing agent or pigment performed a specific function in the suit patent, addressing a problem identified in prior art (ensuring visible application). Its absence materially affected the invention’s objectives, making UPL inapplicable.
SNPC Machines (P) Ltd. v. Vishal Choudhary (2022 SCC OnLine Del 1746): In this case, the court found infringement because the defendant’s mobile brick-making machine achieved the same core function (mobile brick laying) as the plaintiff’s patented invention, despite lacking an in-built mobility mechanism. The court in the present case distinguished SNPC, noting that the absence of the dyeing agent or pigment prevented the defendants’ products from fully achieving the suit patent’s intended function, particularly the visibility aspect critical to effective application. The court’s analysis of these judgments underscored that the essentiality of the dyeing agent or pigment was a key factor distinguishing the present case from the cited precedents.
Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of Judge: The Court’s reasoning focused on the interim injunction application, emphasizing a prima facie assessment of infringement, the balance of convenience, and the potential for irreparable injury. The court adopted the following approach:
The court first examined the composition of the suit patent, which explicitly included Clodinafop-Propargyl 9%, Metribuzin 20%, a surfactant, a dyeing agent or pigment, and a safener. The defendants’ products ("RACER," "Trophy," and "Jodi No.1") contained all elements except the dyeing agent or pigment. The plaintiff argued that the dyeing agent was a non-essential adjuvant, citing its expert’s affidavit, which described it as enhancing visibility without materially affecting weed control efficacy. The defendants countered that the dyeing agent was essential, as it was explicitly claimed and addressed a specific problem (visible application) identified in the patent’s complete specification.
The court analyzed the role of the dyeing agent or pigment, noting that the plaintiff’s own submissions highlighted its advantages, such as ensuring effective application by making the formulation visible on crops. The court referenced the Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s definition of an adjuvant as an ingredient that modifies the action of principal ingredients. While adjuvants are not principal ingredients, the court found that the dyeing agent played a crucial role in achieving the invention’s objectives, as outlined in the patent specification. This distinguished the present case from precedents like UPL, where the omitted component (stabilizer) was non-essential.
The court applied the Doctrine of Equivalents but concluded that the absence of the dyeing agent was not a trivial variation. Unlike Sotefin, where omitted elements were deemed non-essential by scientific advisors, the dyeing agent’s role in the suit patent was integral to its claimed advantages. Similarly, unlike SNPC, where the core function was achieved despite a variation, the absence of the dyeing agent undermined the suit patent’s objective of visible application. The court emphasized that determining the essentiality of the dyeing agent required a full trial, as both parties had submitted conflicting expert reports and scientific journals.
On the validity of the suit patent, the court declined to delve into the defendants’ counterclaim at the interim stage, given its finding of non-infringement. The court noted that patent validity, involving complex issues of novelty and inventive step, should be tested at trial. The court’s prima facie view was that the defendants’ products did not infringe the suit patent due to the absence of the dyeing agent, and material questions raised by the defendants warranted a full trial.
The court assessed the balance of convenience, finding it in favor of the defendants. Granting an injunction would cause undue hardship to the defendants by halting their business operations, while the plaintiff could be compensated through damages if it succeeded at trial. The court also considered the potential for irreparable injury, concluding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that monetary compensation would be inadequate.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for an interim injunction (I.A. 5255/2024) on May 7, 2025. However, it directed the defendants to maintain complete accounts of the manufacture and sale of the impugned products ("RACER," "Trophy," and "Jodi No.1") and file half-yearly statements of accounts. The court clarified that its observations were solely for the purpose of deciding the interim application and would not affect the final outcome of the suit or counterclaim. The suit, counterclaim, and other pending applications were listed before the Joint Registrar on July 30, 2025.
Law Settled in this Case: This case reinforces several key principles in patent law, particularly in the context of interim injunctions:
Essentiality of Claimed Elements: In patent infringement disputes, the court must assess whether all elements of the patent’s claims are present in the allegedly infringing product. If an explicitly claimed element is absent, the court will evaluate its essentiality to determine infringement.
Doctrine of Equivalents: The Doctrine of Equivalents applies only when omitted elements are non-essential or perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way. If an omitted element is integral to the invention’s objectives, infringement cannot be established.
Case Title: Crystal Crop Protection Limited Vs Safex Chemicals India Limited:Date of Order:May 7, 2025:Case No.CS(COMM) 196/2024:Neutral Citation:2025:DHC:3382:Name of Court:High Court of Delhi:Name of Hon'ble Judge:Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
