1. Snapshot (TL;DR Card)
| Element | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Crystal Crop Protection Ltd v. Safex Chemicals India Ltd & Ors. |
| Citation(s) | CS(COMM) 196/2024 & CC(COMM) 28/2024 (Delhi HC) |
| Court & Bench | Delhi High Court – Single Judge (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal) |
| Key Holding | A feature expressly recited in independent claims to solve a defined prior-art problem is an essential element; its omission bars both literal and equivalent infringement, thus no interim injunction. |
| Outcome | Interim injunction application dismissed |
| Keywords | Patent; Infringement; Doctrine of Equivalents; Essentiality; Interim Injunction |
2. Parties & Stakeholders
| Role | Identity & Interest |
|---|---|
| Petitioner | Crystal Crop Protection Ltd – owner of Indian Patent No. 417213 for a weedicidal formulation; seeks to protect its R&D investment and market share. |
| Respondents | Safex Chemicals India Ltd; Indo Swiss Chemicals Ltd; Smith N Smith Chemicals Ltd – manufacturers/marketers of competing herbicidal products alleged to infringe. |
| Intervenors / Amici | Haryana Pesticides Manufacturers Association – filed and withdrew a post-grant opposition, reflecting industry pushback on patent scope. |
| Lead Counsel | For Petitioner: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate; for Respondents: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Advocate |
3. Material Facts
| Date | Phase/Event | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 09-01-2023 | Patent No. 417213 (“Weedicidal Formulation…”) granted (expiring 09-03-2030) | ¶ 6.5 |
| 12-03-2024 | Summons issued and interim injunction application filed; Court directs affidavit on dye’s functional role | ¶ 3 |
| Jan 2024 | Petitioner discovers defendants’ product “RACER” with same actives but no dye | ¶ 6.10–6.11 |
| 31-01-2024 | Lab tests confirm 9% Clodinafop + 20% Metribuzin + safener; dye absent | ¶ 6.11 |
| 29-07-2024 | Defendants file reply to injunction application | ¶ 4 |
| 28-11-2024 to 24-03-2025 | Hearings on interim application; judgment reserved | ¶ 5 |
| 07-05-2025 | Judgment pronounced: injunction dismissed; half-yearly accounting ordered | Cover & ¶ 59 |
4. Issues for Determination
- Essentiality: Is the “dyeing agent or pigment” an essential element of the independent claims?
- Infringement: Does its omission preclude literal or equivalent infringement?
- Interim Relief: Has the plaintiff made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm to warrant injunction?
5. Parties’ Arguments
| Side | Headline Contentions | Leading Authorities |
|---|---|---|
| Petitioner | – Dye is optional adjuvant; core inventive concept = 9% Clodinafop + 20% Metribuzin ratio – Pith-and-marrow test ignores dye omission | Sotefin SA v. Indraprastha Cancer Soc. & RC (2022 Del) UPL Ltd v. Pradeep Sharma (2018 Del) |
| Respondents | – Dye integral for visual homogeneity, reduced phytotoxicity – Prosecution estoppel: applicant treated dye as essential during examination | Actavis v. Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48 ¶ 66 Pharma Tech Sols. v. LifeScan, Inc. (Fed Cir 2019) |
6. Ratio Decidendi
A feature explicitly recited in independent claims to solve a specific prior-art problem is essential; its absence defeats both literal and equivalent infringement, precluding interim relief under Order XXXIX CPC.
7. Final Holding / Decision
| Issue No. | Court’s Answer |
|---|---|
| 1 | Dyeing agent/pigment is an essential element of Claim 1. |
| 2 | Omission of dye bars both literal and equivalent infringement. |
| 3 | Plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury – injunction refused. |
8. Relief & Directions
- Interim Injunction: Application dismissed.
- Accounting: Defendants to maintain and file half-yearly accounts of the impugned products.
- Next Listing: Suit and counterclaim to be listed before Joint Registrar on 30 July 2025.
9. Separate Opinions
- None. No concurring or dissenting judgments.
10. Significance & Impact
- Doctrinal Clarification: Affirms that every element recited in independent claims to address a stated problem is essential.
- Practical Fallout: Alerts patentees to draft independent claims comprehensively and manage prosecution history to avoid estoppel.
- Subsequent Treatment: Expected to guide interim-injunction petitions in patent suits across India.
- Academic Note: Invites debate on the interplay between “pith-and-marrow” and equivalents doctrines in Indian jurisprudence.
