Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection Of Crystal Crop's Herbicidal Composition Patent

Justice Tejas Karia upheld the Assistant Controller's finding that the proposed invention lacked an inventive step and fell under the statutory bar of Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, as it constituted a 'mere admixture' of known substances.

The Court held that the company failed to establish, in its specification at the time of filing, that the combination resulted in a synergistic effect beyond the additive properties of its components.

Crystal Crop Protection filed this appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act to challenge an order dated March 28, 2023, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which rejected its patent application titled 'Herbicidal Composition for Field Crops.'

The company contended that its specific combination of halosulfuron-methyl and metribuzin is a synergistic ready-to-use composition that provides enhanced weed control at lower dosages, making it a non-obvious technical advancement over existing prior art.

The opposing respondents, including the Haryana Pesticides Manufactures' Association, argued that the composition lacked any technical advancement, and the Controller accepted those objections in the impugned order. They submitted that the active ingredients were already well-known for selective weed control in sugarcane and other crops in various prior art references.

The Court observed that the active ingredients, halosulfuron-methyl and metribuzin, had been known for a long time for the selective control of weeds.

“This prior art discloses its use with metribuzin (60) and sulfosulfuron (15) in herbicidal compositions. This evidence shows that combinations of sulfonylurea class herbicides with metribuzin were well-known, and the Subject Patent merely adopts another member of the same chemical class (halosulfuron-methyl) in nearly identical concentration without demonstrating any surprising technical advantage" it remarked.

Justice Karia explained that for an admixture to be patentable, the synergistic effect must be clearly established in the description through comparison at the time of filing, a requirement the appellant failed to meet.

The Court held that a mere admixture of known substances, without clearly established synergistic effect, cannot be granted a patent under Section 3(e) of the Patents Act.

Ultimately, the Bench concluded that the Patent Office's rejection was well-reasoned and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

For Crystal Crop Protection: Advocate Priyam Lizmary Cherian

For Respondents: CGSC Anubha Bhardwaj with Advocate Ananya Shamshery for Assistant Controller of Patents; Advocates Ajay Amitabh Suman, Shravan Kumar Bansal, Rishi Bansal, Pankaj Kumar, Deepak Srivastava, Rishabh Gupta, Shruti Manchanda and Deasha Mehta for Haryana Pesticides Manufactures' Association