Abstract
The article aims to address the issue of patentability and definition of essential biological process under section 3(j) of the Patents Act, 1970. This issue arises from the case of Sakata Seed Corporation vs Controller of Patents and Designs which is a Madras HC judgement focusing on the need of clearly defining what is a ‘essential biological process’ and separating them from the other technical processes in making biotechnological products and the need to exclude it from exceptions provided under Section 3(j). This also brings focus on the aspect of patentability of Genetically modified Seeds (GMOs) whether it should be governed under Patents Act or PPVFR Act,2001. This issue has developed owing to the case of Monsanto Technology LLC v Nuziveedu Seed Corporation. The article involves in a doctrinal research spanning statutes, international conventions, judicial precedents and articles. The paper suggests that there should be clear differentiation between technical processes and essential biological processes based on the amount of human intervention involved and such processes should be patentable and excludable from the expectations mentioned under section 3(j) of the Patents Act,1970. This clearly favors innovation as well as scientific development as well as agricultural development of the nation by production of better seeds. However, there are certain limitation focusing on only one aspect that is the definition of ‘essential biological processes’ with regard to patentability of GMO seeds should be governed under which law needs further research.
Keywords: European Patent Convention, PPVFR Act,2001, technical processes, TRIPs, biotechnology, utilitarianism
Introduction
The area of biotechnology is continuously growing. There are various developments in the field of biotechnology. The most significant development in this field has been the aspect of genetically modified seeds. In contemporary times, as there has been debate about how useful genetically modified seeds have been to plants, there is also debate about how useful it has been to farmers. The recent debate in the case of Monsanto Technology LLC V Nuziveedu Seed Corporation gives an interesting insight into whether the Genetically Modified Seeds should be governed under the Patents Act,1970 or the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act,2001(hereinafter referred to as “PPVFR Act”). In a Recent Case of Sakata Seed Corporation Vs Controller of Patents, the key characteristics of deciding which process comes under the “essential biological process” and other technical processes under section 3(j) of the Patents Act,1970. This involves a crucial discussion about which process in making biotechnological products can be patentable and which cannot. These continuing debates are an important development, keeping in mind the growing needs of biotechnology products and their impact on society, etc. The study includes the aspects of critical study of the statute, the legal theory, cases and articles on the topic.
The paper aims to focus on the research objectives of looking at the applicability of human intervention in processes of biotechnological inventions, and they can be considered to be patentable under Section 3(j) of the Patents Act,1970 and under which law should genetically modified seeds be governed, the Patents Act or PPVFR Act,2001. The article involves a doctrinal study of the issue.
The scheme of the research paper flows from focusing on the theoretical basis of patent law and the focus on its utilitarian background. The article also analyses the objective and history of Section 3(j) of the Patent Act,1970, which is based on Article 27 of the TRIPs Convention. It also analyses the PPVFR Act, 2001 and its background based on the UPOV convention. It is followed by the analysis of the Judicial Precedents by the High Courts, the Supreme Court and the US Courts, it then leads to a discussion about the introduction and Growth of genetically modified seeds in India and then involves a comparative analysis of the interpretation of ‘essential biological process’, which ultimately leads to the conclusion.