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, an Indian agrochemical company, owns patent no. 417213 titled "Weedicidal Formulation and Method of Manufacture thereof."
• The patent, filed on March 9, 2010, and granted on January 9, 2023, covers a novel composition with:
  • Clodinafop-Propargyl 9%
  • Metribuzin 20%
  • Surfactant, dyeing agent or pigment, and a safener
• The product is marketed as "ACM-9" and achieved sales over Rs. 2,400 Crores in 2022–2023.
• In January 2024, the plaintiff discovered that Safex Chemicals India Ltd. was selling "RACER," a similar product.
• Other infringing products:
  • "Trophy" by Indo Swiss Chemicals Ltd.
  • "Jodi No.1" by Smith N Smith Chemicals Ltd.
• All these products allegedly used the same composition, prompting a suit for permanent injunction.
• Patent challenges:
  • 4 pre-grant oppositions — dismissed
  • 2 writ petitions — one withdrawn, one dismissed
  • 1 post-grant opposition — pending but does not affect enforcement rights

Detailed Procedural Background

• Suit filed: CS(COMM) 196/2024 and interim injunction: I.A. 5255/2024 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
• March 12, 2024: Summons issued; plaintiff directed to clarify the dyeing agent's role.
• Defendants replied on July 29, 2024; court heard arguments on four dates: Nov 28, Jan 23, Feb 27, Mar 24.
• Defendants filed counterclaim CC(COMM) 28/2024 challenging the patent's validity.

Issues Involved in the Case

• Do the defendants’ products ("RACER," "Trophy," "Jodi No.1") infringe the plaintiff’s patent?
• Is the absence of the dyeing agent or pigment enough to claim non-infringement?

Plaintiff’s Submissions

• Patent is valid and commercially successful under "ACM-9."
• Infringement exists as the core ingredients are identical.
• Dyeing agent/pigment is a visibility enhancer, not essential to weed control.
• Doctrine of Equivalents applies — similar function achieved even if dyeing agent is absent.
• Judgments cited:
  • Sotefin SA v. Indraprastha Cancer Society — Essential elements mostly included; omission of minor elements doesn't negate infringement.
  • UPL Ltd. v. Pradeep Sharma — Absence of non-essential stabilizer didn’t affect infringement finding.
  • SNPC Machines v. Vishal Choudhary — Core function achieved despite lack of mobility mechanism.

Defendants’ Submissions

• No infringement as dyeing agent/pigment is missing, which is essential per patent specification.
• Doctrine of Equivalents does not apply due to deliberate and functional inclusion of dyeing agent.
• Patent validity challenged — lacks novelty and inventive step.
• Interim injunction should be denied; monetary compensation sufficient if plaintiff wins.

Case Law Distinctions by the Court

• Sotefin SA: Omitted elements were non-essential, unlike the dyeing agent in this case.
• UPL Limited: Stabilizer was non-essential; dyeing agent here is functionally crucial.
• SNPC Machines: Function achieved without in-built mechanism; here, absence of dyeing agent affects visibility function.

Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of Judge

• Prima facie infringement assessment focused on:
  • Patent composition explicitly includes dyeing agent/pigment.
  • Defendants' products lack this element.
  • Dispute over whether this omission is trivial or material.
• Dictionary defines adjuvant as modifying but not principal — court found dyeing agent crucial for the invention’s visibility feature.
• Doctrine of Equivalents did not apply:
  • No independent scientific advisor's report as in Sotefin
  • Dyeing agent directly contributes to achieving stated objectives of the invention

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
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539