IP Case Law › Patents › Monsanto Technology LLC & Ors. v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. & Ors…
Relevant Acts and provisions
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Patents Act, 1970
Provisions considered: Section 3(j) and Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, read with Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Brief facts
Monsanto licensed its patented Bt cotton technology to Nuziveedu Seeds under a sub-licence providing for trait fees. After Monsanto terminated the agreement over a trait-fee dispute, it sued Nuziveedu for patent infringement and sought an interim injunction. Nuziveedu counter-claimed for revocation, contending the patent was barred by Section 3(j) as a biological process.
Free to read once you are signed in
Read the rest of this case note
The findings, the decision and the principle the court settled on are below. Create a free account to keep reading. No payment, and nothing to cancel.
Already have an account? Sign in
We use your details to give you access and to contact you about your enquiry. See our privacy policy.
Keywords
Biotechnology Patent Counter-claim Interim Injunction Patent Eligibility Section 3(j) Summary Adjudication
Read the judgment
More Patents judgments
Array Biopharma Inc v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
A combination of distinct and independent active drugs, each with its own chemical identity and mechanism, does not fall under the Section 3(d) bar for derivatives of known substances. Using phrases such as 'for simultaneous, sepa…
Inventive StepMethod of TreatmentPharmaceutical CombinationPrior ArtPatentsBayer Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.
A compulsory licence under Section 84 of the Patents Act, 1970 may be granted where the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to a patented invention have not been satisfied, the invention is not available at a reason…
Compulsory LicencePublic HealthReasonably Affordable PriceSection 84PatentsBigtec Private Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
An objection that devising nucleotide probes or primers is routine experimentation lacking inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) must engage with evidence of unexpected effects placed on record; and the Section 3(c) exclusion for …
BiotechnologyInventive StepPatent ProsecutionPrior Art