Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 JANUARY 2025

Methods Of Treatment Of Plants Are Patentable

Remfry & Sagar
Remfry & Sagar
Contributor

Remfry & Sagar

Established in 1827, Remfry & Sagar has pioneered IP law in India. The firm’s depth of experience...

View firm profile
Explore more from Remfry & Sagar

Legislative amendments in 2003 eliminated the prohibition on patenting methods of 'treatment of plants'. Consequently, Section 3(h) cannot be construed to re-introduce this restriction.

IndiaIntellectual Property
Ankush Verma
Ankush Verma

Legislative amendments in 2003 eliminated the prohibition on patenting methods of 'treatment of plants'. Consequently, Section 3(h) cannot be construed to re-introduce this restriction.

In yet another decision, the Delhi High Court has underscored that methods of treatment of plants cannot be rejected under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act, 1970 which covers traditional methods of agriculture (Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. Assistant Controller of Patents (C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 63/2024). Previously, the same proposition had been laid down in early 2024 in the Mitsui case (argued by Remfry & Sagar, read here,) and also propounded by the High Court of Calcutta in Decco Worldwide Post Harvest Holdings B.V. & Anr. v. The Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1140 ('Decco judgement').

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Copy, Right? ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC

When an artificial intelligence system is trained on copyrighted news content, and later answers a user’s question using what it learned, has the law been broken? On 24th July 2026, the Delhi High Court answered that question, at least for now. In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding, on a prima facie, interim stage view, that the company’s use of ANI’s news content to train its large language models (“LLMs”) falls within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957
IndiaIntellectual Property
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

AI Training Data, Copyright Risk And Commercial Liability: What Businesses Need To Know

On 8 October 2026, USA Today Co. and its affiliated newspaper companies, which publish 19 titles including USA Today, the Detroit Free Press and The Arizona Republic, sued seven OpenAI entities in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that OpenAI copied their journalism to train its models, stripped identifying information from it, and now uses those models to give ChatGPT users summaries that substitute for the original reporting. The publishers seek more than USD 250 million in damages, an injunction and an order for the destruction of models and training sets containing their content.
IndiaIntellectual Property
Legitpro Law
Legitpro Law