Intellectual property rights in agriculture are a sensitive and complex issue due to their significant impact on socio-economic factors like food security and the livelihoods of farmers. To address these concerns, exceptions to patentability have been introduced, such as Section 3(h) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 (the Act), which excludes “a method of agriculture or horticulture” from patent protection. However, the Act does not clearly define terms like “method of agriculture” and “method of horticulture,” leading to inconsistent interpretations by the Indian Patent Office (IPO).
IPO Manual and Guidelines
In the absence of clear statutory definitions, the IPO’s guidelines and manual serve as a helpful source of clarification. According to the IPO’s Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure, the following are considered ‘methods of agriculture or horticulture’ under Section 3(h):
- A method of producing a plant, even if it involved modification of conditions under which natural phenomena would pursue their inevitable course (for instance, a greenhouse).
- A method of producing improved soil from the soil with nematodes by treating the soil with a preparation containing specified phosphorathioates.
- Methods for producing mushrooms, cultivating algae, and removing weeds.
Additionally, the IPO’s Guidelines for Examination of Biotechnology Applications for Patent state that “conventional methods performed on actual open fields should be considered methods of agriculture/horticulture under Section 3(h).” For instance, growing leguminous plants for intercropping to enhance soil nitrogen content qualifies as a method of agriculture under these guidelines.
Recurring Legal Conflict
As the cases discussed below illustrate, a recurring issue arises when the IPO or a court evaluates patent applications involving plant treatment methods. These cases not only raise questions under Section 3(h) but also bring Section 3(i) into focus, which broadly excludes methods of treatment. The decisions provide valuable insights into how future applications in this domain may be evaluated.
The Case in Brief
On November 26, 2024, the Delhi High Court delivered an impactful decision in Syngenta Crop Protection AG vs. Assistant Controller of Patents, addressing the contentious intersection of agricultural practices and patent law in India. Principally, the case revolved around whether a method for treating rice plants to prevent fungal infections proposed by Syngenta was a patentable invention or an unpatentable “method of agriculture” under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Judicial Scrutiny and Reinterpretation
The High Court’s analysis dissected two critical provisions of the Patents Act: Section 3(h), which bars patents for methods of agriculture or horticulture, and Section 3(i), which was amended in 2003 to permit patents on methods for the treatment of plants. The Court emphasized the legislative intent behind removing “plants” from Section 3(i), underscoring that this amendment explicitly aimed to make plant treatment methods patentable. To interpret Section 3(h) as encompassing plant treatments would negate this legislative purpose.
In reaching the decision, the Court drew upon the precedent of Decco Worldwide Post Harvest Holdings B.V. vs. Controller of Patents and Designs. In the case, the Calcutta High Court had ruled that the treatment of plants for disease prevention could not be classified as a traditional agricultural method under Section 3(h). The Delhi High Court echoed this reasoning, finding that Syngenta’s method addressed a specific technical problem and required a level of innovation beyond routine agricultural practices. Thus, the claim could not be dismissed as a mere “method of agriculture.”
Proposed Amendments: A Strategic Retreat
In response to challenges related to the methods for growing rice plants, Syngenta’s counsel strategically amended the claim to narrow its scope. The Court accepted these amendments, noting that they complied with Section 59 of the Patents Act, which allows amendments as long as they do not broaden the original claim’s scope. The strategic adjustment not only preserved the remaining claims but also enabled a more focused legal discussion on the patentability of plant treatment methods.
The Global Lens
Internationally, the debate over what constitutes a patentable agricultural method continues to evolve. In jurisdictions like the European Union and the United States, similar exclusions for “essentially biological processes” have been subject to nuanced interpretation. For example, the European Patent Office distinguishes between unpatentable plant breeding techniques and patentable technical interventions in agriculture, such as those involving chemical treatments. The Delhi High Court’s ruling aligns with this global trend, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing innovative plant treatments from routine agricultural practices.
Insights
The case offers a crucial insight: the distinction between traditional agriculture and technical innovation is not fixed or uniform. The judgment highlights the judiciary’s role in interpreting patent law to accommodate advances in science and technology. While traditional agricultural methods remain unpatentable, innovations that address specific technical challenges deserve recognition and protection as inventions. By remanding the matter for a fresh examination, the Court has not only provided clarity on Section 3(h) but also reinforced the importance of viewing plant treatment methods through the lens of technical innovation. For innovators in agriculture, this judgment serves as a reminder that meticulous claim drafting and robust legal strategies are essential to overcoming statutory exclusions and securing intellectual property protection.
