Selection of Specific Concentration Ratios and Standard Formulation Types From Prior Art Lacks Novelty and Inventive Step

The Appellant filed Patent Application No. 1607/DEL/2010 on July 8, 2010, for an "Insecticidal Composition" comprising Fipronil (3.5% w/w) and Emamectin Benzoate (1.5% w/w) in a suspension concentrate (SC) form

The Appellant claimed this specific combination exhibited a surprising synergistic effect against both sucking and biting insects

Following a First Examination Report (FER) and four pre-grant oppositions, the Assistant Controller (AC) refused the grant on January 11, 2022, citing lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(d)

The Appellant challenged this order, alleging a non-application of mind, "copy-pasting" of opposition submissions, and procedural unfairness regarding the Section 3(d) objection

1. Whether the subject application lacks novelty in view of prior art disclosures CN1969627 and CN101019546

2. Whether the claimed invention involves an inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act

3. Whether the Assistant Controller followed the requisite legal standards for determining lack of inventive step

The court applied the Patents Act, 1970, specifically Section 2(1)(j) regarding "novelty" and Section 2(1)(ja) regarding "inventive step," which requires a technical advance or economic significance making the invention non-obvious to a person skilled in the art (PSA)

The court relied on Sterlite Technologies Ltd. v. HFCL Ltd., establishing that combining interconnected documents in the same field reflects the "state of the art" rather than prohibited "mosaicing"

It further applied the three-step test for inventive step from Agriboard International LLC vs. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs: (i) disclosure in prior art, (ii) disclosure in the application, and (iii) the manner in which the invention would be obvious to a PSA

The court found the invention lacked novelty because Prior Art CN’627 (Embodiment 5) and CN’546 (Example 5) explicitly disclosed the identical weight concentrations of Fipronil (3.5%) and Emamectin Benzoate (1.5%)

Regarding inventive step, the court observed that Prior Art CN’037 disclosed suspension concentrate (SC) formulations of the same actives and demonstrated their synergistic effect

CN’160 similarly disclosed the actives in various ratios and SC forms

The court rejected the Appellant's argument that the AC merely "copy-pasted" submissions, noting that the AC had independently analyzed the prior art against the subject invention

The court held that formulating known active ingredients into an SC form was a routine practice in the agrochemical industry and lacked the requisite technical advancement over existing knowledge

The court affirmed the Assistant Controller’s findings that the specific concentrations and formulation type were anticipated and obvious in light of the cited Chinese prior art documents

Having sustained the rejection on novelty and inventive step, the court declined to examine the objections under Section 3(d) or Section 25(1)(g)

No order as to costs was made