Microorganisms and the Indian Patents Scenario

Introduction

A microorganism is a microscopic organism, known to be one of the earliest life forms on earth. Viruses, fungi, bacteria, archaea, protozoa, and algae are the six major forms of microorganisms, exploited expeditiously by the biotechnologists and micro-biologists for research purposes. From beer brewing, bread making to mass production of antibiotics, microorganisms are used in all such processes by scientists to reach the desired results. Genetic engineering techniques, DNA typing, etc., have further paved the way for genetically modified organisms such as the genetically modified bacterium, as in the US Supreme court case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty.

The case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty in the 1980s opened gates for the patentability of microorganisms, wherein the claim of a Micro-biologist Dr. Ananda Chakrabarty, for the grant of a patent for a live human-made & genetically engineered bacterium, capable of breaking the components of crude oil was accepted by the US Supreme Court. In this case, the controller of patents of the United States denied the claim for patenting the bacterium per se, stating that, microorganisms are a product of nature and hence are non-patentable according to the US patents regime, which was reversed by the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. Dejected by the decision of the US Court of Customs and Patents Appeal, Sidney A. Diamond, the commissioner of Patents and trademarks appealed to the US Supreme court which again went in favor of Chakrabarty by establishing that a human-made, genetically engineered bacteria was capable of treating oil spills and thus was an invention accompanied by novelty, usefulness, utility, non-obviousness and industrial applicability, which a naturally occurring microorganism was incapable of.

Before the US Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty, Patent protection was not granted to microorganisms as product claims, but only to the process claims in which microorganisms were used as a medium in inventions.

Article 27(3)(b) of the TRIPS 1994, further established that microorganisms and non-biological and microbiological processes are patentable by stating that, “Members may also exclude from patentability, plants and animals other than micro-organisms, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes.”

‘Microorganisms per se can be patented, however, it should be noted that a patent is not granted for discovery rather for an invention which is novel, non-obvious, useful, and capable of industrial application. Therefore, a patent can only be granted for a micro-organism, when there’s a human intervention to create a new, non-obvious, and useful microorganism by way of genetic modification/engineering, cell fusion, gene therapy, or other micro-biological or non-biological techniques.

Further, since the disclosure of details in written description w.r.t., inventions involving micro-organisms is not possible, the Budapest Treaty provides for a mechanism to deposit microorganisms with any “international Depository Authority” for the purpose of patent procedure of national patent office of all the contracting states.

The Indian Scenario

The Indian Patents Act, 1970 added microorganisms under the purview of patentability through the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002, in compliance with the TRIPS.

According to Section 3(j) of the Patents Act, 1970, a plant, animal, seeds, and biological processes, apart from microorganisms are not patentable. Therefore, section 3(j) of the Indian patents act, allows the patentability of microorganisms.

The landmark judgment of the Calcutta High court in the case of Dimminaco A.G. v. Controller of Patents & Designs on 15th January 2001, prior to the 2002 amendment in the patents act, 1970 established a benchmark in the field of microbiological research. In this case, an appeal was filed against the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, wherein, the process for the preparation of infectious Bursitis Vaccine was refused on the grounds that the process of preparation of vaccine that contained a living virus cannot be considered manufacture and that a vaccine comprising of a living virus cannot be considered a substance or inanimate object. The court, in this case, reversed the decision of the Assistant controller and held that, the process of preparing a vendible commodity containing a living substance is not excluded from the purview of the word, ‘manufacture’ and that the controller erred in denying patent protection to the vaccine just because it contained a live virus. Furthermore, the end product was novel, capable of industrial application, and was useful for protecting poultry against contagious Bursitis infection, thus making the process an invention. The court further allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner’s patent application to be reconsidered within two months of the publication/delivery of the judgment.

In the recent Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of, Monsanto Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. Nuziveedu Seeds, The plaintiff claimed that their patent in the man-made, chemical product called NAS(Nucleotide Acid Sequence) containing the gene Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt gene), capable of killing bollworms when inserted in cotton, was not an infringement under section 3(j) of the patents act, 1970, as held by the Division bench of the Delhi High Court. Nuziveedu’s claim was that NAS was merely a chemical composition in-capable of reproduction and not a man-made inventive microorganism, capable of industrial application. The Supreme Court in this case set aside the order of the division bench and restored the order of the single bench and reverted back the matter back to the single bench of the Delhi High Court to be decided on the basis of expert advice and evidence, who had held that, the claims on NAS was rightly entertained by the Indian Patent office and that the parties shall remain bound to their sub-lease agreement.

Thus, the current scenario in India w.r.t. patents in microorganisms is still at an infancy stage and needs progression.

Conclusion

The micro-organisms with human interventions, accompanied by novelty, utility, and industrial applicability are patentable. The technological advancements in the field of microbiology, genetics, etc., have complicated the issues relating to patents in microorganisms. Therefore, scientific aspects and legal drafting of the invention should be done with due precaution and consideration. Further even though, the issues involved in Monsanto’s case were highly technical, The Supreme Court missed its opportunity in deciding upon the facts in issue.

Author: Vartika Prasad, student of X Semester BBA LL.B.(H), Amity Law School, Noida, an intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at aishani@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

11 − 7 =

Archives

  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010