In a historic win, the Supreme Court of India (SC) has today set aside the order the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court (DHC) that revoked Monsanto’s Indian Patent No. 214436 relating to BT technology.

 A suit for infringement and passing off was filed by Monsanto Technology LLC, Monsanto Holdings Private Limited and Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. against three Defendants, namely Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, Prabhat Agri Biotech Limited and Pravardhan Seeds Private Ltd., on the grounds that the Defendants were continuing to “market and sell” Genetically Modified Hybrid Cotton Planting Seeds inspite of termination of the sub-license agreements between the parties, alleging violation of their intellectual property rights covered by the registered Patent (IN 214436) and also trademarks BOLLGARD and BOLLGARD II. Justice R. K. Gauba of the Delhi High Court (DHC) by an order dated 28th March 2017 ruled that Monsanto Technology LLC’s termination of its sublicence agreement with Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. was illegal and arbitrary. Although, the Court reinstated the agreement, the Court directed payment of trait fee to Monsanto for the use of the suit Patent and trademarks, in accordance with the prevalent local laws in force. The Court also directed modification of the agreement according to the format of the GM Technology Agreement Guidelines, 2016 issued by the Government.

 Subsequently, two appeals were filed against the decision of the Single Judge. In the first appeal, Monsanto appealed the judgment directing them to continue to supply BT cotton transgenic variety to Nuziveedu under the 2015 Sub-Licence Agreements except as to the rate of trait fee payable. The second appeal was filed by Nuziveedu urging the rejection of Monsanto’s Indian Patent No. 214436, which claims to cover an invention titled “Methods for transforming plants to express Bacillus Thuringiensis (BT)  deltaendotoxins”. The Division Bench of the DHC, disposing both the appeals together, dismissed Monsanto’s appeal and held that the patented subject matter falls within the exclusion spelt out by Section 3 (j) of the Patents Act. Monsanto’s suit, to the extent it seeks enforcement of the subject patent, was also dismissed. The Single Judge’s directions to Monsanto to continue with its obligations under the sub-license agreements, including consequential orders with respect to payment and receipt of trait value, were also upheld.

 A special leave petition was filed by Monsanto to the Supreme Court and by a decision of even date the Supreme Court has set aside said order of the Division bench.

 We would revert with details of the order as soon as the same is available. Stay tuned!