06/02/2019 Monsanto Vs Nuziveedu Patent dispute: Brief Analysis of Judgement | Invntree

Home
Core Team
Services »
Domain Expertise
OptiResponse
Resources »
Blog
Contact us

Menu search

onsanto Vs Nuziveedu Patent dispute: Brief Analysis of Judgement

ubmitted by invntreepatentinvntreepatent onMay 15, 2018 No comments

Follow Tweet Share Like 0

he recent advancements in the field of plant biotechnology has promoted multifold growth of agro-biotech industry.
he recent research in the plant genomics has resulted in producing sustainable varieties of plants and crops. The
increase in the number of patents stands as a witness for the paradigm shift in the field of plant biotechnology.

owever, enforceability of these patent rights remains a challenge. The increase in the number of patent infringement
litigations in the agro-biotech industry in the recent times, is an indication of said challenge. A brief analysis of patent
litigation between agro-biotech based companies, Monsanto and Nuziveedu Seeds is presented below.

ackground of the case

onsanto is an American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation, whereas Nuziveedu
eeds is an Indian agribusiness company, known to be among the largest hybrid seed companies in the country.
onsanto had licensed its patent IN214436 relating to Bt. Cotton technology to different Indian companies including
uziveedu Seeds, for which a lifetime fee of Rs. 50 lakh was charged along with a recurring ‘trait value’ as
ompensation. The Indian companies utilized said patented technology to produce cotton seeds that are resistant to
oll-worm attacks.

he Indian companies demanded Monsanto to reduce the trait fee as the State Governments were passing new price
ontrol orders to fix the trait fees. Monsanto refused to reduce the trait fees. Consequently, the Indian companies
topped paying royalties to Monsanto since October 2015. Subsequently, Monsanto sent a notice to Nuziveedu in
ovember 2015 regarding the termination of their sub-license. Nuziveedu and few other Indian companies

http://www.invntree.com/blogs/monsanto-vs-nuziveedu-patent-dispute-brief-analysis-of-judgement 1/5
06/02/2019 Monsanto Vs Nuziveedu Patent dispute: Brief Analysis of Judgement | Invntree

pproached Competition Commission of India (CCI) against Monsanto and alleged Monsanto of anti-competitive
ractices including “the abuse of dominant position” and “anti-competition agreements”.

onsanto terminated its contract and initiated arbitration proceedings for the recovery of the due amount of Rs. 400
rores from the Indian companies. Additionally, a lawsuit was initiated by Monsanto before Delhi High Court against
uziveedu Seed Ltd., Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd. and Pravardhan Seeds Pvt. Ltd, seeking an injunction for patent and
rademark infringement.

s a response to the infringement allegations, the defendants filed a counter-claim for the revocation of the plaintiff’s
atent. The defendant urged to revoke the patent as per the provisions of Section 8, Section 10(4) and argued that
he patent is invalid, as it falls within the scope of Section 3(j) and 3(h) of Patents Act.

ecision by Single Judge of the Delhi High Court

he Single Judge of the Delhi High Court reinstated the sub-licence that was terminated by Monsanto. It allowed
uziveedu Seeds and other Indian companies to continue using the patented technology till the suit is disposed,
herein, the trait fee must be paid in accordance with the government set rates. The Single Judge also rejected the
rguments of the defendant about the validity of the patent.

ppeal to Division Bench of Delhi High Court

oth the parties appealed to the Division Bench of Delhi High Court against the order of Single Judge. Monsanto
hallenged the decision of the Single Judge to re-instate the licence terminated by them. The defendants challenged
he rejection of their arguments about the validity of plaintiff’s patent.

Decision by Division Bench of the Delhi High Court

he Division Bench concluded that the subject patent falls under the provisions of Section 3(j) of the Patent Act and
eld that the claims of the patent are unpatentable. The Division Bench upheld the order of Single Judge regarding
he trait fee payable by the Indian companies to Monsanto. The court gave a time period of three months to
onsanto to seek protection for its invention under “The Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Right Act, 2001”.

nalysis on the Judgement

he order of the Division Bench to invalidate the patent under Section 3(j) is not convincing in our view. The court
ppears to have arrived at the judgement without adequate claim construction and expert witness. The claim
onstruction is the primary requirement in deciding the validity of a patent, which in the present case, appears to have
een inadequate. The misinterpretation of Section 3(j) to invalidate the patent is a major setback to innovation in the
ield of plant biotechnology.

ccording to Section 3(j), following inventions are not patentable:

“(j) plants and animals in whole or any part thereof other than micro organisms but including seeds, varieties
and species and essentially biological processes for production or propagation of plants and animals”

ccording to Section 3(j), plants and animals per se or any part thereof are not patentable. Moreover, ‘essentially
iological processes’ to produce plants and animals are also not patentable. Though the definition of ‘essentially
iological processes’ was not defined in the Patents Act, Rule 26(5) of the EPC states that “a process for the
roduction of plants or animals is essentially biological if it consists entirely of natural phenomenon such as crossing
r selection”.

In the present case, the court made an observation that:

“The conclusion that the court draws therefore, is that transgenic plants with the integrated Bt. Trait, produced
by hybridization (that qualifies as an “essentially biological process” as concluded above) are excluded from
patentability within the purview of section 3(j), and Monsanto cannot assert patent rights over the gene that has
thus been integrated into the generations of transgenic plants.”

http://www.invntree.com/blogs/monsanto-vs-nuziveedu-patent-dispute-brief-analysis-of-judgement 2/5
06/02/2019 Monsanto Vs Nuziveedu Patent dispute: Brief Analysis of Judgement | Invntree

It is to be observed that, Monsanto got a patent for the introgression of specific Bt. bacteria genes into the cotton
enome with human intervention. This cannot be considered as an essentially biological processes. So, the court’s
bservations in considering the claims of the Monsanto’s patent as essentially biological processes appears to be
inappropriate.

onsanto had alleged infringement of Claim 25 of the patent; claim 25 is recited below:

“A nucleic acid sequence comprising a promoter operably linked to a first polynucleotide sequence encoding a
plastid transit peptide, which is linked in frame to a second polynucleotide sequence encoding a Cry2Ab
Bacillus thuringiensis 8-endotoxin protein, wherein expression of said nucleic acid sequence by a plant cell
produces a fusion protein comprising an amino-terminal plastid transit peptide covalently linked to said 5-
endotoxin protein, and wherein said fusion protein functions to localize said 5-endotoxin protein to a subcellular
organelle or compartment.”

he claim deals with the extraction of a specific nucleic acid sequence from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt bacterium) and
inserted into a plant cell. The modified nucleic acid sequence produces toxins that are resistant to boll-worm attacks.

etter claim construction and expert witness would have helped the court to prevent the misinterpretation of Section
(j).

onsanto has appealed before the Supreme Court and challenged the decision of Division Bench. We wish the apex
ourt pronounces a judgement with reasoning, such that companies can continue to innovate and seek protection
ithin the framework of the Patents Act and international obligations, which India has agreed to by way of TRIPS,
nd the like.

e hope this article was a useful read.

lease feel free check our services page to find out if we can cater to your requirements. You can also contact us to
xplore the option of working together.

est regards – Team InvnTree

his work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License

iological inventions, biotechnoogy, monsanto

eave a Reply

our email address will not be published. Required elds are marked *

ame *

mail *

http://www.invntree.com/blogs/monsanto-vs-nuziveedu-patent-dispute-brief-analysis-of-judgement 3/5
06/02/2019 Monsanto Vs Nuziveedu Patent dispute: Brief Analysis of Judgement | Invntree

ebsite

lease enter an answer in digits:

ighteen + 5 =

Post Comment

Related posts

Monsanto Challenges High Court Judgement Adversely Affecting Patentability in the Field of Agricultural
Biotechnology

Meeting Enablement Requirement In Patent Applications Dealing With Biological Material – Indian Perspective

Subscribe to articles for Free!

Name

Email

Subscribe

We are at your service!

Name*

Phone no*

Email*

Company

Subject*

Message

SUBMIT

Menu
Services
Domain Expertise
Our Clients
Contact Us
Terms and Conditions

http://www.invntree.com/blogs/monsanto-vs-nuziveedu-patent-dispute-brief-analysis-of-judgement 4/5
06/02/2019 Monsanto Vs Nuziveedu Patent dispute: Brief Analysis of Judgement | Invntree

Careers
Site Map

FAQ
Cost of filing patents in India
What can and cannot be patented
Patent filing options
Patent filing procedure
Patent process time-line
How Long Does it take to Get a Patent?
Are software inventions patentable
What is the jurisdiction of a software patent?
Is creating a prototype necessary? Should I apply for patent before publishing?

Are business methods patentable?

How to conduct a patent search
Is my invention already invented?
When should I apply for a patent?
Can I file for a patent outside India, without filing in India
Why should I determine if I have freedom to operate
Should I apply for a patent in my name or in my companies name
When will my patent application be examined?
Does a patent give me the right to use my invention?
Why should I take care to file statement and undertaking?

Contact Us

InvnTree Intellectual Property

Services Pvt. Ltd.
591, 1st floor, 1 A Main Road, Sector - 6,
H.S.R Layout,
Bangalore – 560103,
Karnataka, India.

Social Pro les

2010 - 2019 Invntree.com . All Rights Reserved

esigned by Visible Spectrum
>

http://www.invntree.com/blogs/monsanto-vs-nuziveedu-patent-dispute-brief-analysis-of-judgement 5/5