IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

CS(OS) No. _____ of 2012
Deepak Pranjivandas Shah
501/502, Vandana Apartments
Janaki Kutir
Juhu Church Road
Juhu,Mumbai-400 049

..Plaintiff No.1

V. T. Balchandran
F-1/37/B-9, Sector-B
Phase II
Nerul, Navi Mumbai 400 706

.Plaintiff No.2

Sulphur Mills Ltd.

604, 605, 6th Floor
349 Business Point
Western Express Highway
Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 069

.Plaintiff No.3
Versus

Crystal Phosphate Ltd.

G1-17, G.T. Karnal Road
Industrial Area
Azadpur
Delhi-110033
.Defendant No.1
Jaylaxmi Industries
10/2, Vill. Vav, PO. Dhansar
Baska-Rameshara Road
Tal. Halol
Dist. Panchmahal-389 350
Gujarat

.Defendant No.2

SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING INFRINGEMENT

OF PATENT, RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS, DAMAGES, DELIVERY UP
ETC. IN RESPECT OF INDIAN PATENT NO. 188927
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The plaintiffs abovenamed most respectfully submit as under:
1.

The Plaintiff No.1, Deepak Pranjivandas Shah, an Indian National, is

the Chairman and Managing Director of Plaintiff No.3 and Coinventor of the invention, that is granted patent no. 188927 dated
26.04.2001 and is subject matter of the present suit. The plaint
has been signed and verified by Mr. Binoy Shah who is familiar
with the facts and circumstances of the case and is competent and

duly authorized to do so. The copy of power of attorney dated 5 th

August, 2012 in favour of Mr. Binoy Shah is placed on record.

2.

The Plaintiff No.2, V. T. Balchandran is an Indian National and

Manager (Plant Operations) of Plaintiff No.3 Company and also Coinventor of the invention, that is granted patent no. 188927 and is
subject matter of the present suit. The plaint has been signed on
behalf of Plaintiff No.2 by Mr. Binoy Shah who is familiar with the
facts and circumstances of the case and is competent and duly
authorized to do so. The copy of power of attorney dated 5 th
August, 2012 in favour of Mr. Binoy Shah is placed on record.

3.

The Plaintiff No.3, namely Sulphur Mills Ltd. is a company

incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered
office at 604-605, 349, Business Point, Western Express Highway,
Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 069.

The plaint has been signed and

verified on behalf of Plaintiff No.3 by Mr. Binoy Shah who is familiar

with the facts and circumstances of the case and is competent and
duly authorized to do so. The copy of power of attorney alongwith
the extract of Board Resolution dated 23rd July 2012 in favour of Mr.
Binoy Shah is placed on record.

4.

The Plaintiff No.3 is a 40 years old company engaged in the

business of manufacture and sale of Agro Chemical Formulations.
The Plaintiff No.3 is the largest manufacturer in Asia for Water
Dispersible Granule Formulations and a leader amongst such 5
Water Dispersible Granule manufacturers worldwide. The Plaintiff
No.3 markets its products in over 90 countries including Europe,

United States, South America, Africa, Australia and New Zealand.

The Plaintiff no.3 holds over 200 international registrations
including USA,

Europe and

Australia. The Plaintiff No.3 operates

through a network of 2000 distributors in India and has an annual

turn over of approximately Rs.400 Crores. The Plaintiff No.3 has
three manufacturing facilities in India in Maharashtra, Gujarat and
Jammu & Kashmir.

The Plaintiff No.3 is one of the very few

companies in India to have a state of art dedicated Research and

Development facility, for Agrochemical Formulations located at
Mumbai.

5.

The present case pertains to a process patent no. 188927 dated

26.04.2001 in respect of an invention titled as A NOVEL PROCESS
FOR THE MANUFACTURE OF IMIDACLOPRID WATER DISPERSIBLE
GRANULES. The patented process was invented by the Plaintiff
Nos. 1 and 2 in the course of their employment with the Plaintiff
No. 3 with the use of the assets resources and facilities of the
Plaintiff No 3. The Patent, which has been granted to Plaintiff Nos.1
& 2, has since been assigned it to the Plaintiff No.3. Whilst the
Plaintiff No.3 has taken steps to record itself as the assignee of the
said patent before the Controller of Patents, Mumbai and the same
is pending recordal.

6.

The patent, subject matter of the present suit pertains to a novel

process for manufacture of IMIDACLOPRID

Water Dispersible

Granules (hereinafter referred to as IMIDACLOPRID WG) which is

manufactured by use of the inventive process invented by the
Plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2.

7.

Conventionally, IMIDACLOPRID was available in the form of soluble

liquids or wettable powder. IMIDACLOPRID 1-(6-chloro-3-pyridin-3yImethyl)-N-nitroimidazolidin-2-ylidamine

is

used

as

an

insecticide to control sucking insects including aphids, rice

hoppers, termites, thrips, white flies, turf insects, soil insets, and
some beetle species such as Colorado and potato beetle.

It is

widely used in the soil, seed or foliar treatment of cereal, cotton,

fruit, maize, potatoes, rice, sugar beets, turf and vegetables.
PROBLEMS
WITH
FORMULATIONS:
8.

CONVENTIONAL

IMIDACLOPRID

Conventional agrochemical formulations such as dusting powders,

emulsifiable concentrates, soluble liquids, wettable powders, and
some types of water dispersible granules, pose several problems.

Emulsifiable concentrates and soluble liquids are undesirable due

to the use of the toxic solvents. The solvent also presents several
problems of unpleasant odour, environmental hazard, disposal
constraints and degradation of soil on prolonged use.

Wettable powders are dusty and unsafe for the user. In general
practice, the process of making a wettable powder involves milling
of the ingredients either separately and then blending, or blending
the ingredients followed by milling or a combination. The resulting
powder consists of fine particles, resulting in serious problems,
which may be encountered during the use, or handling of these
agrochemicals, particularly IMIDACLOPRID.

The powder is dusty

and has a tendency to get suspended in the air during handling of

open storage containers.

Also another threat posed by these

wettable powders is the possible damage to environment, soil,

water, plant and animal life, in the neighbouring areas where these
powders are being charged to application equipment for use.
Suspension concentrates pose a problem during transportation, as
they are not economical to transport being in an aqueous form,
have associated problems of leakage and packaging, as disposal of
the containers is an environmental hazard.

WATER DISPERSIBLE GRANULES:

9.

In order to overcome some of the problems associated with the

use of the conventional agrochemical formulations, researchers
and

organizations

have

engineered

the

concept

of

water

dispersible granules. Water dispersible granules, also known as

dry-flowable formulations, are superior due to their ease of use,
pouring properties, and non-dusty granular nature.

However, in spite of being a known art, Water Dispersible Granules

have different characteristics based on the physical and chemical
properties of the active ingredient and the type of process used for
manufacture of formulation as well as the agents used for
formulation.

Various

parameters

such

as

suspensibility,

spontaneity of dispersion, blooming capacity, wetting period etc.,

determine the quality of the Water Dispersible granule formulation.
Therefore, the physical and chemical properties of the active
ingredient, process, the process parameters, and the formulation

agents,

play

vital

role

in

the

feasibility,

quality

and

characteristics of the Water dispersible granule formulation.

10.

A PCT patent WO 93/14632 claims Water Dispersible Granules of

low melting pesticides which are prepared by milling the pesticides
with a first portion of finely divided filler and blending the milled
mixture with a second portion of finely divided filler, wetting the
blend with water and then forming granules from the wetted blend
through the process of extrusion. The particle size of the mixture
after the milling stage is less than 50 microns. Milling is carried out
in fluid energy mills using air or inert gas, and/or mechanical mills
such as hammer or pin disc mills. However, since the milling is dry
the particle size distribution is not optimum, as at least 50% of the
particles are usually above 7 microns. Also, when added to water,
these granules do not disperse well enough and take a long time
to dissolve.

11.

US Patent 3,920,442

reveals water dispersible granules

of

bromacil, diuron or a combination of bromacil and diuron,

aggregated in a fluidized bed, to a size in the range of US 10 mesh
to US 140 mesh. The process comprises fluidizing the pesticide
with the binder-dispersant, while spraying water onto the fluidized
solids to effect agglomeration followed by drying. Another US
Patent, 5,628,800, claims the same process with controlled
parameters of airflow rate and feed rate of the dispersion solution
at the onset of the process. The granules obtained from these
processes still suffer from undesirable characteristics of dustiness
and uneven coverage over the crop when sprayed.

12.

IMIDACLOPRID is an active ingredient which has been widely used

as an insecticide worldwide. It was available prior to 2001 in form
of wettable powder formulations prepared by PAN granulation and
in a water dispersible granule form manufactured by process of
extrusion. This process of extrusion is explained hereinunder:

EXTRUSION

PROCESS:

Manufacturing process in

which

softened material including the active ingredient and excipients, is

forced

through

continuous

shaped

metal

ribbon/needle/noodle

piece
shaped

or

die

to produce a

product.

Granules

prepared by the process of extrusion are shown below:

Water dispersible granules are expected to disperse and dissolve

spontaneously and completely upon contact with water.

The size

of the granules made by conventional pesticide granulation

techniques such as those of pan granulation and extrusion is too
large. These granules tend to contain too low an active ingredient
concentration not allowing a low-volume application with uniform
coverage over the crop, and do not present good dispersion
properties.

13.

Conventional

wettable

powder

and

granule

formulations

of

IMIDACLOPRID pose problems of incomplete dispersion and low

suspension. When added to water, the conventional formulations
do not disperse uniformly, and tend to settle down. This requires
continuous stirring, to keep the product in suspension.

PATENTED PROCESS:
14.

The present invention of the process of manufacture gives

IMIDACLOPRID WG formulation possessing excellent characteristics
of dispersion and suspension. When added to water, the product
disintegrates

instantaneously

and

completely,

displays

an

exceptional blooming capacity and remains suspended in solution

for a long period of time, and is completely dispersed uniformly.
This is just one advantage of the developed invention.

In addition to this, the product made by the patented process is

such that there are no electro-static charges between individual
particles, so as to prevent caking of the product. The said
formulation, when made from the unique invented process,
therefore, has an enhanced shelf life, while retaining its properties
of high suspension.

Also the product made by the patented process provides improved

rainfastness, i.e. it tends to stick to the surface of the crop, when
sprayed, and adheres to the crop surface in spite of severe
weather conditions such as a heavy rainfall, thus ensuring
complete protection.

Also, the product made by the patented process has a dust-free

granular nature, which eliminates all the problems associated with
the conventional wettable powder formulation. Errors which are
likely to occur while measuring dosages, while using wettable
powder formulations, are eliminated with the use of the said
invention.

Another advantage of the invention is the ability to form a product

containing a high active content. Also, the inventive process gives
rise to a product that is safer for use by the farmer, as it is dustfree and coherent.

15.

OBJECT OF THE INVENTION:

The primary object of the invention is to provide a novel process
for

the

manufacture

IMIDACLOPRID

of

novel

insecticidal

formulation

of

WG, which displays superior qualities of dispersion

and suspension in water along with ease of usage and safety to

the user.
The primary object of the invention is to provide a novel process
for

the

manufacture

of

novel

insecticidal

formulation

of

IMIDACLOPRID water dispersible granules which displays superior

qualities of dispersion and suspension in water, along with ease of
usage and safety to the user.

A completely dust-free formulation is desirable, so as to prevent

any toxicity caused to the user or the environment. It is also
necessary that while being dust free the product is not too

compacted and disintegrates completely in water. It is the aim of

the invention to provide a process which results in IMIDACLOPRID
water dispersible granules, which disintegrate and disperse
instantaneously upon contact with water, and form a uniform and
stable suspension, thus eliminating continuous stirring.
Another aim is to provide a process to prepare an improved
formulation, which has an improved shelf life. The product is made
in a way, such that there is no electro-static attraction between
the individual particles, and thus the particles are prevented from
getting fused. This prevents any caking of the product, and the
product can withstand pressure and temperature, whi1e resisting
abrasion and attrition, upon handling and storage. The product
therefore has a longer shelf life, while retaining its suspension
properties. At the same time, the product is economical for the
user.

Other objectives include, providing a product which is easy to

store, easy to pour, and easy to use. Also, the product does not
stick to the container, and therefore, the disposal of the container
is not a problem.

16.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION:

The present invention comprises blending IMIDACLOPRID active
ingredient, along with formulation adjuvants, and water, to form an
aqueous suspension, milling the aqueous suspension in at least,
one wet grinding equipment to form a slurry having a particle size
distribution in the range of from 0.3 microns to 8 microns, and

drying the slurry with or without agglomerating the slurry in a

spray drier or fluidized bed spray drier or fluid bed spray
granulator, to form the said IMIDACLOPRID

WG in the range of

from 100 microns to 2.5 mm as compared to conventional

IMIDACLOPRID WG manufactured using extrusion process having
length of 1 mm to 5 mm and a diameter of 0.5 mm to 1.2 mm.
The difference between such granules prepared by patented
process and conventional process is visible to the naked eye as
illustrated hereinunder:

Imidacloprid by Extrusion process

Imidacloprid
WG:
patented process

by

The present invention thus relates to a novel process of

manufacture of a novel formulation of IMIDACLOPRID

WG, which

is a coherent, free-flowing, non-dusty formulation, with improved

characteristics.

The invention results in a product, which has several advantages

such as those of superior dispersion, high suspension, exceptional
blooming, uniform coverage and improved shelf life. In addition to
its efficacy, the formulation, made by the invented process is also
preferred due to its ease of use, flowability and non-dusty granular
nature and resistance to crushing and attrition.

The

said

formulation

of

IMIDACLOPRID

WG

comprises

the

IMIDACLOPRID active ingredient along with necessary formulation

adjuvants such as dispersing agents, wetting agents, binding
agents, fillers and antifoaming agents. To get a product with ideal
characteristics huge amount of experimentations involving various
permutations and combinations of different parameters needed to
be tried to arrive at an optimum result, some of such parameters
being as under: :
1. Inlet temperature of air
2. Outlet temperature of air
3. Speed of the atomizer
4. Ph of slurry
5. Anti foam
6. Type of beads used
7. Size of beads used
8. Final moisture content in product

Since so many parameters need to be controlled and a variation of

any one parameter may result in different specifications of the
finished

product,

it

was

considered

extremely

manufacture the product with ideal characteristics.

difficult

to

17.

GRANT OF PATENT DATED 26.04.2001:

The Plaintiff nos. 1 & 2, who invented the novel process in the
course of their employment with the Plaintiff No 3 by the use of
the assets, resources and facilities of the Plaintiff No 3 applied for
grant of patent in the inventive and novel process by filing an
application before Controller of Patents on 26.4.2001.

The said

application was duly examined by the Patent Office for fulfillment

of legal requirement of novelty, inventive step, non-obviousness
etc. by examining all relevant prior arts.

The application was

published in the Gazette and after being satisfied about all legal
and technical requirements, and in absence of any opposition from
any member of public, the Controller granted the said patent to
the Plaintiffs on 12th September, 2003 with the priority date of
26.4.2001.

The scope of the invention for which the Plaintiffs have been
granted patent no.188927 is defined in claim no.1 of its complete
specification, which is reproduced as follows:

THE CLAIM:
A novel process for the manufacture of Imidacloprid water
dispersible granules comprising the following steps:
(a)
Blending the Imidacloprid active ingredient water, at
least one dispersing agent with or without wetting agents
binding agents, fillers, and one antifoaming agent, to form
an aqueous suspension wherein the water content in the
said aqueous suspension is in the range of from 25% to 55%
(b)
Grinding the said aqueous suspension in at least one
wet grinding equipment to form a slurry comprising a

particle size distribution in the range of from 0.3 microns to

8 microns
(c)
Atomizing the said slurry through a nozzle or a rotary
atomizer, or a combination of a rotary atomizer at the top
and the nozzle near the bottom in a Spray Drier or Fluidized
Bed Spray Drier or Fluidized Bed Spray Granulator
(d)
Drying the atomized slurry by means of hot air, with or
without agglomerating in an integrated fluid bed, to form
granules in the size range of from 100 microns to 2.5 mm
(e)
Post drying the said granules in a post fluidized bed
drier, if required to remove any fine dust and moisture if any,
to obtain the said, practically dust free, Imidacloprid water
dispersible granules in the size range of from 100 microns to
2.5 mm.

The patent also incorporates additional claim nos. 2 to 16 as set

out in the complete specification which has been placed on record
for perusal by this Honble Court, but is not reproduced herein for
sake of brevity.
18.

DESCRIPTION:
Appearance:

The product is beige to tan in colour and in a

granular, dry flowable form.

Granules,

DF,

WG

or

Also known as Water Dispersible

WDG.

The

international

accepted

nomenclature is WG.

19.

BENEFITS:

1.

Better Bioefficacy

2.

Better coverage is achieved

3.

Better flowability

4.

Practically dust-free

5.

Reduced inhalation toxicity

6.

Higher bulk density than a conventional WP reducing

packing cost per kg of product

7.

Reduces Imidacloprid residue to the environment

8.

Less injurious to human being due to lesser inhalation

toxicity

9.

Better particle size range

10.

Better adhesion property

11.

Product is adapted to use practices by farmer

12.

Because of better flowability, no product remains in the

bag/packet.

13.

Better shelf life because almost all micron particles are

coated. Hence, there is almost no electrostatic attraction

14.

20.

Cost effective formulation

USES:
As an insecticide, to control sucking insects including aphids, rice
hoppers, termites, thrips, white flies, turf insects, soil insects, and
some beetle species such as Colorado and potato beetle.

It is

widely used in the soil, seed or foliar treatment of cereal, cotton,

fruit, maize, potatoes, rice, sugar beets, turf and vegetables.

21.

The Plaintiffs thus have an exclusive statutory right to prevent any

third parties from using the patented technology, or from
manufacturing IMIDACLOPRID WG by the use of the Patented
technology

or

from

offering

for

sale,

selling

or

importing

IMIDACLOPRID products manufactured by use of the PATENTED

process without the Plaintiffs consent and any such unauthorized
use, manufacturer or sale would constitute infringement of
Plaintiffs Patent no. 188927, which is liable to be injuncted in
accordance with the provisions of Section 108 of The Patents Act,
1970.

22.

PLAINTIFFS PRODUCT:

Over the years since 2000, Plaintiff No 3 has invested over Rs

Three crores in a state-of-the-art research facility and over Rs
Three crore in plant and machinery. The Plaintiff No.3 has been
manufacturing and selling IMIDACLOPRID WG manufactured by use
of the patented process since the year 2003.

Plaintiff no.3

registered this product with the Centre for Insecticides Board for
export vide registration certificate no. CIR(E)-1362/2003(232)IMIDACLOPRID(WG)-32 dated 20-5-2003. The Plaintiff No.3 is the
first and only company to manufacture and export IMIDACLOPRID
70% WG manufactured by the use of the patented process. In the
year 2003 itself, the product was exported to Tanzania and West
Indies.

In the very first year, the Plaintiff No.3 achieved export

turnover, exceeding US$ 50,000.

Subsequently, the Plaintiff No.3

also exported IMIDACLOPRID 70% WG manufactured by the use of

the Patented process to various other countries including Uruguay,
Ivory Coast, Saudi Arabia, Greece, Italy and Romania with repeated
orders from most of these countries. Since 2003, the Plaintiff No 3
has spent and or committed to spend at least Rs 6 Crores to
register IMIDACLOPRID manufactured by the Patented Process in
various countries around the world. The annual export and
domestic turnover of the Plaintiff No.3 in respect of IMIDACLOPRID
manufactured by the Patented Process from the year 2003 till year
ending March 2012 is set out hereinbelow:

Imidacloprid 70 WG ( Assuming USD at around Rs 50)

sales
Exports

USD12,485,295

(Approx Rs 62

crores)
India

Rs. 26.06

Crores
Total

Rs.88.06
Crores

23.

In India also, the Plaintiff No.3 has been selling IMIDACLOPRID 70%
WG manufactured by the Patented process to various other
companies who have been marketing it under their own brands.
The Plaintiff No.3 has also been manufacturing and selling
IMIDACLOPRID 70% WG with the use of the Patented Process under
the trade mark PRONTO DF since 2007. Since 2007, Plaintiff No.
3 has spent approximately Rs. 3.5 Crores on marketing and
developing the product in the Indian market.

24.

The Plaintiffs, thus, have a sizable domestic as well as export

market for IMIDACLOPRID
patented

process

and

the

WG manufactured by use of the

same

has

evidently

generated

formidable goodwill and reputation in respect of such products in

India and world over.

The patented process, therefore, is a

valuable intellectual property right owned by the Plaintiffs and

infringement thereof, if not prevented would lead to violation of
statutory right and also cause irreparable damage and injury to
the Plaintiffs in their potential business worldwide including in
India. The Plaintiffs therefore ought to be protected against such
infringement by this Honble Court as any continued infringement
would cause irreparable injury to the Plaintiffs which cannot be
compensated in monetary terms.

25.

DEFENDANTS

The Defendant No.1, Crystal Phosphate Ltd. is a company

incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956 having its registered
office at G1-17, G.T. Karnal Road, Industrial Area, Azadpur, Delhi110033.

The Defendant No.2, Jaylaxmi Industries, having its

registered office at 10/2, Vill. Vav, Po. Dhansar, Baska-Rameshara

Road, Tal. Halol, Dist. Panchmahal-389 350, Gujarat a constituent
of the Defendant No.2 is not known and the said defendant be
directed to disclose the same.

Plaintiffs reserve their right to

implead other co-defendants after such disclosure. The defendant

no.1 is engaged in the business of marketing and selling
Agrochemicals including IMIDACLOPRID WG to which the Plaintiffs
have no objection, so far that they are manufactured by use of the
conventional process of PAN granulation or extrusion process and
not the patented process of the Plaintiffs. There are companies
who are commercially marketing Imidacloprid WG as an extruded
product which is

commercially viable. There is no prejudice to

defendants if defendants follow the extrusion process. Thus, an

injunction would not restrict the defendants to continue to be in
the business of marketing Imidacloprid WG if manufactured by
process other than patented process.
The Defendant No.1 is, as per the information of the Plaintiffs,
getting the said product manufactured by Defendant No.2 who is
manufacturing it by using the patented process of the Plaintiffs
thereby both the defendants committing infringement of the
statutory right of an exclusive use, manufacture and sale conferred
by Section 48 of The Patents Act, 1970 upon the Plaintiffs.

26.

PAST BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH DEFENDANT NO.1:

Recognizing the superiority of the product manufactured by the

use of the Patented Process, the Plaintiff No.3 was approached by
the

Defendant

No.1

in

the

year

2008

to

manufacture

IMIDACLOPRID 70% WG by the use of the Patented Process and to

supply the same to the Defendant No.1 so as to enable the said
defendant to market and sell them in Indian market under its
brand LOOPER. The purchase orders placed by Defendant No.1
on Plaintiffs in this respect for a total volume of 10.5 Metric Tons,
worth close to Rs.2 Crores is placed on record.

No further orders

were placed by the Defendant No.1 on the Plaintiffs thereafter. The

shelf life of the said product is two years. It was assumed by the
Plaintiffs that the Defendant No.1was still utilizing the existing
stock as manufactured by the Plaintiffs and as and when there
would be further requirement, they would revert to the Plaintiffs.

27.

The Plaintiffs were surprised to come across IMIDACLOPRID 70%

WG marketed by the Defendant No.1 under the trade mark
LOOPER in 2nd week of July, 2012. The said product was purchased
by the Plaintiffs representative from a retailer in Delhi vide Invoice
no.17498 dated 13.07.2012. Though the packaging contains the
name of Defendant No.1 as the manufacturer, as per plaintiffs
information, the Defendant No.1 has got the same manufactured
from a contract manufacturer namely the Defendant No.2.

The

brochure of Defendant no 2 also shows Defendant no 1 as a

customer of Defendant no 2. Though it is evident from the visual

shape & appearance of the granules that they are prepared by

patented process involving spray drying and not by extrusion
process, in order to verify the process used by Defendant No.2, the
Plaintiff No.3 had placed an order to manufacture and supply
IMIDACLOPRID WG through its supplier namely Agropack on
Defendant No.2. The Defendant No.2 manufactured the same and
supplied

to

Agropack

vide

invoice

dated

01/08/2012.

Subsequently, the Plaintiff No.3 sent an inquiry through Agropack

for manufacture and supply of IMIDACLOPRID WG in bulk quantity
vide email dated 13.08.2012 inquiring whether they manufacture
IMIDACLOPRID WG using a process involving:

Mixing Imidacloprid technical, water and the dispersing

agent to form a slurry;

Grinding the above slurry in a wet mill to a particle size of 38 microns;

Atomising the slurry through a nozzle or rotary atomizer in a

spray drier;

Drying the atomized slurry with hot air in a spray dryer.

Vide email dated 14.08.2012 the Defendant No.2 confirmed that

they are already using the said process for manufacture of
IMIDACLOPRID or such formulation. This conclusively proves that
Defendants are committing infringement of Plaintiffs patented
process.

It is also evident from the shape & appearance of the Defendants

product that it is manufactured by use of patented process and not
the prior extrusion process. It is identical in shape and appearance

of the granules as is that all the granules manufactured and sold

by the Plaintiffs by use of the patented process. It is, therefore,
evident that the Defendants are committing infringement of
Plaintiffs patent which is liable to be injuncted being in violence of
statutory right of exclusive use conferred on the Plaintiffs vide
Section 48 of The Patents Act, 1970.
Photograph comparing the products manufactured by Plaintiff no.
3 (PRONTO), Defendant no. 1 (LOOPER), Defendant no. 2 & product
manufactured using the Extrusion process (DZIRE)

28.

It is submitted that the Defendants are free to manufacture and

sell IMIDACLOPRID WG manufactured by the conventional process
of extrusion process without using the patented process of
plaintiffs like others are doing in the trade. There is, therefore, no
prejudice that will be suffered by the defendants if they are
injuncted from injuncting the Plaintiffs patent which is limited to a
novel and inventive process of manufacture IMIDACLOPRID

WG.

On the other hand, any continuation of infringing manufacture and

sale would be in breach of statutory right conferred upon the
Plaintiffs on account of which, the Plaintiffs had made disclosure of

their invention while applying for the patent.

As is evident, the

Plaintiffs patent is a well established patent for over last 11 years

during which it has neither been opposed nor challenged by
anybody else including any member of the trade involved in the
manufacture and sale of IMIDACLOPRID 70% WG. The infringing
use of the defendants, if not injuncted, would completely destroy
the potential business and market of IMIDACLOPRID 70% WG of
the Plaintiffs thereby causing irreparable damage and injury to the
Plaintiffs. It may also be noted that there would be no prejudice to
the Defendants if they get the said product manufactured by the
plaintiffs as the Plaintiffs had undertaken in past to manufacture
and supply the same to the Defendant No.1.

29.

In order to further verify that the IMIDACLOPRID 70 % WG now

being marketed by the Defendants are manufactured using the
patented process of the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff No.3 got the sample
of the Defendants analyzed from the Institute of Pesticide
Formulation Technology (IPFT), which is an autonomous institution
set up by the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, Government of
India under the Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals.
IPFT is the leading and only institute in India that undertakes the
development of different formulations of pesticides and also has
the ability to scale up studies from Bench scale to commercial
scale. It has developed all type of water dispersible granules and
has the ability to identify the process used by analyzing the
finished product. The said institute has analyzed the Defendants
sample of IMIDACLOPRID 70% WG sold under the brand LOOPER
including particle size, appearance, shape and size of granules to

conclude on the process used to arrive at a finished product of

such characteristics.
According to the IPFT Report, The process used by the
Defendants is spray drying process which comprises of slurry
preparation, which involves mixing the active ingredient with
water and excipients such as wetting agents, dispersing agents,
where water content is generally more than 30% of this wet slurry,
grinding the slurry in wet milling equipment to a desired particle
size, followed by spray drying of the slurry. It is also mentioned
that the spray drying process involves atomizing the slurry and
drying the slurry with hot air in the spray drying chamber. The
Defendants sample has a mean particle size range of 2.73
microns. It is also stated Based on our experience of developing
technology for these formulations in our institute, we can confirm
that if you follow the process as described above, you will get the
similar type of spherical micro-granules as in this sample
submitted.
The Plaintiffs further obtained the Expert Opinion of Mr. Wilhelm
Zsifkovits, an International Expert in the field to confirm whether
the IMIDACLOPRID 70 % WG being manufactured, marketed and
sold by the Defendants under the brand LOOPER are manufactured
using the patented process of the Plaintiffs. Mr. Wilhelm Zsifkovits
after conducting the analysis has confirmed that the process used
by the Defendants in manufacturing of IMIDACLOPRID 70 % WG is
the same as the patented process of the Plaintiffs. The Expert
Opinion of Mr. Wilhelm Zsifkovits duly notarized is placed on
record. The relevant extract from the Expert Opinion is reproduced
hereinbelow for ready reference:
From the analysis of this sample, based on its shape, size and
appearance, with my years of experience I can say that the
sample has been manufactured using the following steps:
a. Blending the Imidacloprid active ingredient with water and
excipients to form an aqueous suspension.

b. Grinding the aqueous suspension in a wet mill to a desired

particle size.
c. Spray drying the suspension in a spray dryer to form the water
dispersible granules.

In my view, the material of Crystal Phosphates has been made by the process I
have stated above.
In view of the above, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion
that the sample of Looper (Imidacloprid 70% WG) manufactured by
Crystal Phosphates has been clearly made by the process falling within
the scope of claim 1 of Indian Patent No.188927.

This

clearly

concludes

that

Defendant

No.1s

process

of

manufacturing IMIDACLOPRID WG infringes claim 1 of the patent.

30.

It is evident from the facts stated hereinabove that the Defendant

No.1 had got the said product manufactured from the Plaintiffs in
the year 2008.

The report given by IPFT of the Defendants

product (IMIDACLOPRID 70% WG) under the brand LOOPER now

marketed by the Defendants clearly shows that the Defendants
have used all the steps as are subject matter of claim no.1 of
Plaintiffs Patent No.188927, thereby committing infringement of
the said patent.

The Defendants are therefore, liable to be

injuncted from manufacturing and selling or offering for sale the

infringing product as prayed for.

31.

As stated hereinabove, the Plaintiffs, not only have the statutory

right of exclusive use of the patented process by virtue of Section
48 of The Patents Act, 1970 but it also have a sizable business of
IMIDACLOPRID 70% WG involving use of patented process in
several countries and India. If the Defendants are not restrained
from manufacturing and selling IMIDACLOPRID 70% WG infringing

the patented process of the Plaintiffs, it will cause irreparable

injury and damage to the Plaintiffs in their potential business
including business involving third party manufacture and licensing
which cannot be quantified in monetary terms.
therefore,

cannot

be

compensated

The Plaintiffs

adequately

by

any

compensation that may be awarded by this Honble Court for

committing infringement of patented product.

The Plaintiffs are

therefore entitled to be protected against irreparable damage and

injury by an order of injunction restraining such infringing
activities. There is no prejudice that the Defendants will suffer if
such injunction is granted since the Defendants are free to
manufacture /sell the formulation by the use of any other process.

32.

The Plaintiffs have suffered irreparable damage and injury on

account of infringement of its patent committed by the Defendants
which is not quantifiable in monetary terms. The Plaintiffs have
disclosed their invention in good faith and pursuant to a statutory
protection conferred upon them against anybody else using the
said invention during the patent period. The patented invention is
a product of extensive application of skill, labour and huge
financial investment in research and development undertaken by
the Plaintiffs. The product in question namely IMIDACLOPRID 70%
WG has achieved stupendous success in the market place on
account of its enhanced quality, efficacy and utility which is
evident from the annual turnover thereof disclosed in preceding
paragraphs of the plaint. The Plaintiffs have also taken great pains
and financial investment running into several crores of rupees in

marketing and promoting the said product since 2003.

The

Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss and injury if the Defendants are
allowed to continue the infringing activities it would not only be in
breach of Plaintiffs statutory right but would also inevitably lead to
denial

of

potential

business

opportunity

for

commercial

exploitation of the patent in process by the Plaintiffs which cannot

be quantified or compensated. The Plaintiffs are therefore entitled
to an order of preliminary injunction as well as the reliefs claimed
in the present plaint.

33.

The cause of action for institution of the present suit arose in 2 nd

week of July, 2012 when the Plaintiffs came across defendants
infringing product in the market. The said cause of action further
arose when the Defendants infringing product was purchased by
the Plaintiffs vide Invoice No.17498 dated 13.07.2012 at Delhi.
The said cause of action further arose when the laboratory testing
analysis by IPFT revealed that the process used by the Defendants
is evidently as a special matter of the Plaintiffs patent. The cause
of action further arose in first week of August, 2012 when the
Plaintiffs received confirmation from its field force that the
infringing product of Defendant No.1 was manufactured by
Defendant No.2. The Defendant No.2 has confirmed in the emails
referred to hereinabove that it is manufacturing IMIDACLOPRID
70% WG involving spray drying process. The said cause of action
is continuous one and continues to subsist till the Defendants are
restrained from infringing the Plaintiffs product.

34.

This Honble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the
present suit since the Defendant No.1 is carrying on business at
Delhi and within the jurisdiction of this Honble Court. This Honble
Court also has jurisdiction since the infringing product as
manufactured by Defendant No.2 and marketed by Defendant No.1
are selling and offered for sale within the territorial jurisdiction of
this Honble Court and hence the part of cause of action has also
arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honble Court.

35.

The value of the suit for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is as
follows:
a) for an order of permanent injunction restraining infringement
of patent, this relief is valued for purposes of court fee and
jurisdiction at Rs.200/- and court fee of Rs.20/- is affixed
thereon;
b) a decree for delivery up, this relief is valued for the purpose of
court fees and jurisdiction at Rs.200/- and court fees of Rs.20/is affixed thereon;

c)

for an order for rendition of accounts of profits and a decree

for an amount so found due or in the alternative, a decree
for damages as may be ascertained and awarded by this
Court,
and

this relief is valued for the purposes of court fees

jurisdiction

at

Rs.20,00,000/-

and

court

fee

of

Rs.21,864/- is affixed hereto. The Plaintiffs undertake to pay

such additional court fee as may be directed by this Honble
Court after ascertaining the amount due to the Plaintiffs;

Thus the suit is valued for the purposes of court fees and
jurisdiction at Rs.20,00,400/- and court fees of Rs.22,000/- is
affixed thereto.

PRAYER
36.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may be

pleased to grant the following reliefs in favour of the Plaintiffs and
against the Defendants:

(a)

a decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants,

by itself or through its servants, agents, job workers, distributors or
otherwise howsoever, directly or indirectly,

from using the

Plaintiffs Patented Process which is the subject matter of Patent

No 188927 or from manufacturing Agrochemical formulations
(insecticide) by use of the patented process which is the subject
matter of Patent no.188927 or from using, selling, offering for sale,
exporting or dealing in Agrochemical formulations (insecticide)
IMIDACLOPRID

WG by use of the patented process which is the

subject matter of Patent no.188927 of the Plaintiffs or any other

process as may be substantially similar thereto amounting to
infringement of Indian Patent No.188927 of the Plaintiffs;
(b)

an order for rendition of accounts of profits earned by the

Defendants by manufacture and sale of IMIDACLOPRID WG by use
of the patented process of the Plaintiffs and a decree of the
amount so found out or in the alternative a decree for damages as
may be ascertained by this Honble Court may be passed in favour
of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants;

(c)

a decree for delivery up of all the stock of infringing

IMIDACLOPRID
manufactured

WG available with the Defendants which are

by

the

infringing

process

to

an

authorized

representative of the Plaintiffs;

(d)

an order for cost of the proceedings;

(e)

any further order as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper
in the interest of justice.
Plaintiff No.1
Through:
(BINOY S. SHAH)
Constituted Attorney
Plaintiff No.2
Through:
(BINOY S. SHAH)
Constituted Attorney
Plaintiff No.3
Through:
(BINOY S. SHAH)
Constituted Attorney

Through:

Dated: 28th August, 2012

Plaintiffs

Advocates for the

VERIFICATION:
I, Binoy Shah, do hereby verify that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 32
of the plaint are true and correct to my knowledge derived from the

records of the plaintiffs and those of paragraphs 33 to 35 are based upon

information and legal advice received and believed to be true. The
contents of paragraph 36 are prayer before this Honble Court.
Verified at New Delhi on this 28th day of August, 2012.
(BINOY S. SHAH)
Constituted
Attorney