* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 16.02.2026 Judgment delivered on: 08.04.2026 + C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 86/2022 CRYSTAL CROP PROTECTION LIMITED .....Appellant versus SUDPITA DEY ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS & ORS. .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Priyam Lizmary Cherian and Ms. Shruti Jain, Advocates For the Respondents : Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Mr. Shailendra Kumar Mishra and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocates for R-1 Mr.Ajay Amitabh Suman and Mr.

Shravan Kumar Bansal, Advocates for R-3 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

J U D G M E N T

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) assailing the order dated 11.01.2022 passed by the Assistant Controller (hereinafter referred to as “learned AC”) of Patents and Designs under Section 25(1) of the Act, refusing the grant of patent application no.1607/DEL/2010 (hereinafter referred to as “subject application”).

BRIEF FACTS:-

2. The appellant had submitted the Patent Application no. 1607/DEL/2010 in respect of an Insecticidal Composition was filed on 08.07.2010. The First Examination Report (hereinafter referred to as “FER”) was furnished on 26.05.2017 and the response thereto was submitted by the appellant on 22.09.2017. The appellant had amended its claims vide communication dated 22.11.2019. It is stated that between the years 2017 and 2021, four pre-grant oppositions were filed against the said application and the appellant had filed replies thereto.

3. The first hearing notice was issued on 03.09.2021, however, the appellant sought adjournment, which was granted. Subsequently, the Assistant Controller heard the arguments on 23.11.2021 before passing the impugned order on 11.01.2022. It is this order which is challenged before this Court by way of the present appeal.

4. The appellant claims that the subject application provides a broad spectrum insecticidal composition for controlling a wide range of insects, namely: (i) biting and chewing types (Spodoptera, Fruit Borer, Helicoverpa) and (ii) the sucking types (mites, leaf miners and thrips). The appellant claims that there does not exist a single insecticidal composition which is effective against a wide range of insects, which would include the biting and chewing types as also the sucking types. It claims that different types of insecticides are used for different varieties of insects, thereby increasing the cost and causing considerable economic loss.

5. The appellant claims that to overcome the limitations in the prior art, a broad spectrum insecticidal composition was needed and subject application is one such insecticidal composition. Primarily, the appellant claims the use of “Fipronil”, which is a member of the Phenyl-Pyrazole Class of pesticides, which is a systemic and contact insecticide disrupting the central nervous system by blocking the GABA (gamma-aminobutyric acid) receptor and glutamate-gated chloride channels (GluCI) and Emamectin Benzoate (EB), which is a member of the Avermectin Class of pesticides and is a contact insecticide blocking the neurotransmitter GABA. The composition comprises Fipronil (F) and Emamectin Benzoate (EB) in specific weight concentrations namely, 3.5% w/w of F and 1.5% w/w of EB, formulated as a suspension concentrate (SC) formulation. It is claimed that the combination of F & EB exhibits an enhanced insecticidal activity at a much lower concentration than when either of them is used alone, thereby confirming a surprising synergistic effect. The appellant claims that if a combination of two active ingredients leads to a synergistic effect which is over and above the additive effect, then such a synergistic combination is entitled to patent protection as laid down by this Court in Biomoneta Research Pvt. Ltd. vs. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Anr., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1482

6. The inde