Methods of Agriculture and Horticulture

1A method of agriculture or horticulture cannot be the subject matter of a patent under the Patents Act. In United Kingdom, a method of producing a new form of a known plant (Poinsettia) was held not to be a manner of manufacture even though the invention involved modifying the conditions under which natural phenomena would pursue their inevitable course. (NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken’s Application (1954) 71 RPC 192.) However, a process for the production of edible mushroom tissue was held to constitute a manner of manufacture as it did not produce a plant or an animal, and was carried out in a laboratory. (Szuecs’ (Joseph) Application (1956) RPC 25, p 26.)

2In Decco Worldwide Post Harvest Holdings B.V. v Controller of Patents and Designs (2023) the Calcutta High Court held that “Section 3(h) is method of agriculture or horticulture which does not contemplate treatment of plants to render them free of disease whereas section 3(i) deals with the process of treatment or prevention.” (para 10) The Court held that “no reasons have been given by the Controller as to why a method of treatment of plants to treat fungal diseases would fall within section 3(h) which covers traditional methods of agriculture” (para 11). The Court remanded the application and made clear that “the aforesaid findings insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, are prima facie and not binding on the Controller” (para 15).

3In Syngenta Crop Protection v Assistant Controller of Patents (2024) the Delhi High Court, on the removal of “or plants” from s.3(i), held that “Clearly, the object of the amendment was to remove the bar on the patentability in respect of methods for the treatment of plants.” (para 19) On Decco it held, the Delhi High Court said that it is “in agreement with the aforesaid view taken by the Calcutta High Court.” According to the Court, 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. The Court observed that “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.” (para 23)

4The Court relied on the Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure (version 3.0) dated 26th November, 2019, to show some of the examples of the subject matter that are excluded from patentability under Section 3(h). The Court quoted the following examples from the Manual: “a) A method of producing a plant, even if it involved modification of the conditions under which natural phenomena would pursue their inevitable course (for instance a greenhouse). b) A method of producing improved soil from the soil with nematodes by treating the soil with a preparation containing specified phosphorathioates. c) A method of producing mushrooms. d) A method for cultivation of algae. e) A method for removal of weeds.” (para 25) The Court concluded that none of the aforesaid exclusions would cover the methods of ’treatment of plant’. (Syngenta Crop Protection v Assistant Controller of Patents (2024) (para 26))