In Syngenta Crop Protection AG vs. Assistant Controller of Patents 2024, Switzerland based corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection AG had filed the Indian Patent Application No. 202117035647 titled “Methods of Controlling or Preventing Infestation of Rice Plants by the Phytopathogenic Microorganism Gibberella Fujikuroi” as a national-phase application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (‘PCT’) claiming priority date of 23rd January, 2019.
According to the claims, the invention was an application utilized on rice plants, via spraying chemicals with fungicidal activity to manage the pathogen. However, the application was refused by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs on the ground that the claims of the subject patent application fall within the scope of the words ‘method of agriculture’ under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act and the applicant could not show in the specification that applying a compound to plants, or seeds calls for any particular knowledge or experience, or that it must be done by a person who is not a farmer. Thus, the claimed method does not comprise any steps which indicate that it may not be considered as a method of agriculture. Further, the process of treating fungus infection in a crop of rice plants by applying a compound is not considered any technical solution to agricultural challenges only this is purely agricultural method which are typically carried out by farmers in their regular practice. Therefore, the appeal was filed.
Appellant relied on section 3 that describes the methods that would not be considered invention. The provision was amended on 20th May, 2003 whereby, the words ‘treatment of plants’ from sub-clause (i) were deleted. It was submitted that the intention of the legislature in carrying out the amendment was that the methods relating to ‘treatment of plants’ would not be hit by the bar of Section 3(i) of the Patents Act and would thus become patentable whereas respondent relied on the definition of ‘agriculture’ used in Section 3(h) of the Patents Act which gave a broad and liberal meaning to the term. Reliance was also placed upon the definition of ‘agriculture’ given in the Black’s Law Dictionary as well as the Central Agricultural University Act, 1992, where the term ‘agriculture’ has been given a wide meaning to include the prevention of diseases in plants.
The court cited Calcutta High Courts’ judgement in Decco Worldwide Post Harvest Holdings B.V. & Anr. v. The Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr 2023 wherein the Controller had failed to explain why the subject patent application fell within the category of “agriculture”. In fact, no reasons had been given by the Controller as to why a method of treatment of plants to treat fungal diseases would fall within section 3(h) which covers traditional methods of agriculture. The Controller had also failed to explain why prevention of disease or treatment would fall under agriculture, when there is a separate provision under section 3(i) of the Act. It was evident from section 3(i) of the Act that, the treatment of plants do not fall within the purview of non-patentability and the Manual being a mere guiding factor to the statutory provisions of the Act cannot have an overriding effect over the Act. Thus, the finding that the subject invention falls within the definition of “agriculture” does not deal with the submissions of the appellants.
The court also emphasized on the importance of judicial and quasi-judicial citing reasons for non-acceptance/acceptance of an invention as they provide clarity to the reader and to understand how and why and how the matter has been proceeded and dealt with by the Authority.
Appellant also amended its claim which was allowed under section 58(1) of the Patents Act as it did not place a bar section 59 whereby, a new subject matter was introduced under the garb of an amendment. The court allowed proposed amendments sought by the appellant as they did not alter the nature of the Complete Specification of the subject patent application. In fact, the amendments sought to narrow the scope of the claim via deleting the Claims 2-9 and 11 of the subject patent application and by merging the Claims 1 and 10 to form the proposed claim. The main ground of refusal in the impugned order was on the basis of Claim 11 which had been given up by the appellant, the matter was sent back to the Controller for a de-novo adjudication. Moreover, the court also specified that amendment of claim before granting of patent is within the purview of High Courts’ power as it is within controller’s authority under Section 15 of the Act as cited in the judgement of the Supreme Court in Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Vinita Mehta & Anr, (2022) 7 SCC 67.
The court also cited Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure (version 3.0) dated 26th November, 2019 which clearly excludes methods of ‘treatment of plant’ from a method of agriculture or horticulture which is not an invention. Henceforth, the appellant was allowed the amendments in their claim along with acknowledging the invention on method of treating plants as patentable.
DUCTUS EDGE 