Synopsis

The appellant, Crystal Crop Protection Limited, filed a patent application (No. 1607/DEL/2010) for an insecticidal composition comprising Fipronil (3.5% w/w) and Emamectin Benzoate (1.5% w/w) in suspension concentrate (SC) form, claiming a synergistic effect. The Assistant Controller rejected the application under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and non‑patentability under Section 3(d). The appellant appealed under Section 117A. The Delhi High Court examined multiple Chinese prior art documents (CN’627, CN’546, CN’055, CN’970, CN’037, CN’160) and held that the exact composition and concentration were disclosed in the prior art, and the formulation as SC was a routine choice for a person skilled in the art. The court upheld the Controller’s findings on lack of novelty and inventive step, and dismissed the appeal.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Date of Judgment: 8th April 2026

Citation: 2026:DHC:2926

Core Law: Patents Act, 1970 (Sections 2(1)(j), 2(1)(ja), 3(d), 25(1), 117A)

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Patents Act, 1970 – Section 2(1)(j) (definition of “invention”), Section 2(1)(ja) (definition of “inventive step”), Section 3(d) (mere discovery of new form of known substance not patentable), Section 25(1) (pre‑grant opposition), Section 117A (appeals to High Court)

• Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure, 2019

Key legal principles applied

• Novelty (Section 2(1)(j)): An invention is novel if it is not anticipated by prior publication or prior claiming. If a single prior art document discloses all essential features of the claimed invention, including specific concentrations and formulation type, the invention lacks novelty.

• Inventive step (Section 2(1)(ja)): An invention involves an inventive step if it has technical advancement or economic significance and is not obvious to a person skilled in the art. The Controller must analyse: (i) the prior art, (ii) the subject invention, and (iii) how the subject invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art.

• Mosaicing of prior arts: Combining multiple prior art documents to challenge inventive step is permissible only if the documents are interconnected or disclose similar products. If multiple documents disclose substantially similar products, it reflects the state of the art and is not improper mosaicing.

• Synergistic effect not novel if already disclosed: If a prior art document already discloses the same combination and also teaches synergism (e.g., co‑toxicity coefficient), the claimed synergy does not confer novelty.

• Formulation as suspension concentrate (SC): If prior art discloses that the composition can be formulated as a suspending agent or SC, and SC is a routine formulation known to a person skilled in the art, claiming SC does not add inventive step

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.