NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LTD. & ORS. v. MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC & ORS
Citation: AIR 2019 SC 559
Jts. Navin Sinha
Analysis of this case law is done by Gourav Asati, fourth-year law student at Institute of Law, Nirma University. His interests lie in IPR and Criminal Law.
ISSUE:- In the present case primary issue before the Apex Court to determine whether the NAS becomes a part of the plant after its insertion, if answered in affirmative then the case would fall under the ambit of Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 however if found otherwise then the case shall be governed as per the principles of Patents Act.
LAWS DEALT WITH: - Section 9 of CPC, Section 64 & 3 (J) of Patents Act,
KEYWORDS: - Monsanto, Nuziveedu, NAS, Cotton, Microorganism, BT-trait, Biological process
MATERIAL FACTS: - Monsanto Technology LLC registered a patent for Nucleotide Acid Sequence (NAS) encompassing the gene Bacillus thuringiensis (BT-Gene). A technology was manifested whereupon insertion of NAS into the DNA structure of cotton seeds the effect of bollworms (a type of bacteria) is significantly reduced it led to less use of insecticides and pesticides by the farmers.
The Monsanto sublicence a contract was ratified on 21.02.2004 between the parties to the case for the preliminary ten years. In lieu of the contract, Nuziveedu was permitted to develop “Genetically Modified Hybrid Cotton Planting Seeds” in a coalition with the patent holder. The contract nominally brought to an end on 14.11.2015 (one year of extension) because of the disputes in the license fee.
The dispute between Monsanto (appellants/plaintiff) and Nuziveedu Seeds Limited (defendants/respondent) (Nuziveedu) started in 2016, it was the time when Monsanto dispensed legal proceedings against Nuziveedu for the patent transgression. In the present case, an injunction suit was filed against the Nuziveedu from using the trademark BOLOGARD and BOLOGARD II brand cotton technology, it was an alleged infringement of the registered patent, further actions sought complete prohibition on the defendants to from dealing in the hybrid seeds originating from the patented technology. Subsequently, the matter was filed seeking an injunction as per Order 39, Rule 1 &2 of the CPC to prevent the defendants from using the registered trademark after the cessation of the sublicence contract. In its response, Nuziveedu made counter-claim inspiring the legitimacy of the patent.
ARGUMENTS: - The Monsanto claimed that NAS would fall under the subject matter of patent being a microorganism, the patent protection was not demanded for the plant. The application was made for NAS after qualifying all the required stipulations being a novel, non-published, non-obvious to a person skilled in the art, and capable of industrial applicability. Evidently, the NAS did not naturally grow, the product is a manmade substance.
The Nuziveedu contended that the NAS was merely a chemical component unable to reproduce itself which is an essential function of microorganism further it does not have any industrial utility. Only upon insertion into the plant, it releases BT-trait to develop endurance or resistance capability in the cotton plant. Once NAS is injected it becomes an integral part of the seed, as the gene transmits it becomes a part of the biological process inside the plant. The chemical component violates Section 64 and 3 (J) of the Patents Act, dealing with plants and seeds which contain DNA Sequence, submitting that infringement of an unlawful scheme cannot be done.
SINGLE JUDGE BENCH DECISION:- The Single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court, formulated that in the application for an injunction on patent usage, the aforementioned sublicense cannot be arbitrary ended by the Monsanto, the validity of patent protection is under observation it can only be determined after adducing evidence, the suit is pending and the issues related to the validity of a patent are yet to be concluded. As per precedent case laws companies were permitted to use the patented technology while the suit is pending before the court, moreover, the trait charge has to be paid by the Nuziveedu Seeds in correspondence to the price predetermined by the Government of India.
DIVISION BENCH DECISION: - Before the Division Bench of Delhi High Court, Monsanto challenges the previous decision of a single judge bench for re-instating the sublicense agreement, on the other side Nuziveedu challenged the decision for the validity of the patent. The court observed that NAS does qualify as a subject matter of patent as per Section 3 (J) of the Act, the decision on trait charge to be paid by Nuziveedu was maintained, a time of three months was construed to Monsanto for registration of patent under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001.
SUPREME COURT DECISION: - An appeal was preferred before the Apex Court, it concluded that the Division was not precise in to arrogate the Single Judge Bench decision, it is disagreeable to adjudicate a matter summarily which require expert evidence to check the veracity of patent. In order to revoke a patent Section 64 of the Patents Act and Section 9 of the CPC shall be taken into consideration, in addition to the vivid examination of expert witnesses and scrutinized documents. The Divisional Bench decided the instant matter in a shallow manner by a mere examination of documents and no expert comment. On the contrary, the order deliberated by the Single Judge Bench was up to the mark reflecting righteous method of assessment, the order was therefore upheld.
CONCLUSION: - The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in the present matter is notable because it establishes the BT crops as a subject matter of patent suppressing the objections raised. The judgment is significant not just for the business conglomerates seeking protection under the Patents Act, 1970 but also the prevent issues in the ever-increasing horizon of patent protection to given in the field of R&D.
Also read- F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd vs Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd - 'Trademark Infringement'
0 Comments