SOWING INNOVATION, REAPING RIGHTS: Revisiting Section 3(h) in Syngenta case

Introduction

Section 3(h) of the Patents Act, 1970 (“the Act”), was enacted to protect fundamental farming practices by excluding patents on ‘methods of agriculture or horticulture’. In contemporary agricultural landscape, it is no longer confined to just ‘cultivating the soil’ or ‘producing crops’. It transcends the traditional bounds morphing into solution centred approach to address practical challenges. 

Against this backdrop, Syngenta Crop Protection AG’s  (“the Appellant”) patent application for “Methods of Controlling or Preventing Infestation of Rice Plants by Phytopathogenic Microorganism Gibberella Fujikuroi” was refused by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs vide the order dated April 05, 2024 (“impugned order”), on the ground that ‘Methods of controlling or preventing infestation of plants’ fall in the ambit of Section 3(h) of the Act. 

The Appellant aggrieved by the impugned order filed an appeal, seeking redress. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court after considering the facts of the case, decided to allow the appeal in favour of the Appellant.

Argument advanced

The Appellant contended that their invention transcended traditional agricultural practices, falling squarely within the ambit of a ‘method of treatment’, which otherwise is not barred by Section 3(i) of the Act in context of plants. To further this argument, the Appellant drew the Court’s attention to the amendments carried out in Section 3(i) of the Act on May 20, 2003, whereby the words ‘treatment of plants’ were deleted. This amendment, they averred, was a purposeful legislative reform aimed at recognizing and granting patents for plant treatment methods, thereby distinguishing them from routine agricultural practices excluded by Section 3(h) of the Act.

Further, the Appellant argued that the term “agriculture” is subject to varying interpretations across statutes and dictionaries. Therefore, it should be applied in a manner specific to the invention under Section 3(h) of the Act. The Appellant further relied on the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court’s decision in Decco Worldwide Post Harvest Holdings v. Controller of Patents, which clarified that plant treatment methods addressing fungal diseases constituted technical solutions rather than traditional agricultural methods. 

Besides, as a part of their appeal, the Appellant proposed amendments to their claims, wherein they sought to merge claim 10 with claim 1 and to withdraw claims 2 to 9 from the application.

The Patent Office, in defence, maintained that the claimed methods were well-known agricultural practices traditionally employed by farmers and argued that the term “agriculture” inherently includes the treatment of plants. It was asserted that the application of compounds to treat plants is a standard agricultural method practiced universally by farmers and thus falls within the purview of Section 3(h) of the Act. Consequently, the refusal to grant the patent was both justified and consistent with the provisions of the Act.

Judgement and Analysis

While acknowledging the substantial amendment of the claims, the Court highlighted that under Section 58(1) of the Act, the Court is empowered to allow amendment of claims during appellate proceedings, provided such amendments comply with Section 59 requirements. In support, the court referred to Societe Des Produits Nestle SA v. Controller of Patents and Designs, which established that amendments to patent claims can be made at the appellate stage. 

The Court emphasized that the proposed amendments by the Appellant did not alter the scope of the Complete Specification but instead narrowed the claims. Accordingly, the Court allowed the amendments.

The Court further noted that the 2003 amendment to Section 3(i) clearly reflected the legislature's intent to make methods of treating plants for disease control patentable. This amendment was a conscious departure from the earlier framework, which had excluded such methods. The Hon’ble Court stated, “…a method of treatment of plants would not fall under the purview of ‘method of agriculture’ as defined in Section 3(h) of the Patents Act. It cannot be the intention of the legislature to remove the bar on patentability in respect of the method of ‘treatment of plants’ under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act and yet include the same within the purview of 3(h) of the Patents Act.” 

The Court also referenced the Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure, noting that examples of subject matter excluded under Section 3(h) involve methods of ‘producing a plant’ but do not cover ‘treatment of plants’.

In remanding the matter back to the Patent Office for a de-novo adjudication, the Court exemplified its role as a custodian of both legal integrity and technological progress. It urged the Controller to not merely apply statutory language, but to exercise a discerning eye, recognizing the distinction between age-old agricultural practices and the intricate interventions of modern science. The Court’s call for a meticulous evaluation underscores a profound truth: patent law, much like the industry it governs, must evolve—adapting not only to safeguard innovations but to ensure that its assessment is as refined and forward-looking as the technologies it seeks to protect. In doing so, it reinforces the principle that the law must remain a dynamic participant in the narrative of innovation, rather than a passive bystander.

References:

2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1140

2023 SCC OnLine Del 582