Monsanto Technology LLC and others.

Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. and Ors.

Genetically Modified Cotton Seeds
Bt - Bacillus Thuringiensis insect-resistant cotton
claims: nucleotide acid sequence (NAS)

Monsanto and Nuzhiveedu entered into a sub-licnense agreement. The latter was allowed to develop genetically modified hybrid cotton seeds. Dispute over the license fee and agreement was terminated.
Subsequently, Monsanto was seeking injunction and unpaid dues.

- 21 February, 2004: Sub-license agreement
- 14 November 2015: Termination of the Agreement
- 28 March 2017: Single Judge Injunction

- SC set aside the division bench order and restored the single judge order (28.4.17).
- Issues of patent validity or exclusion under the Patents Act are not to be adjudicated in summary injunction hearings without trial.
- Court acknowledged the necessity for expert evidence on biotechnology (NAS insertion, inheritance, whether it becomes part of plant genome, etc.)

Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. v. Monsanto Technology LLC 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8326 (DB) - Ruled against Monsanto by accepting defendants’ arguments on patent exclusion and rights under PPVFR Act.

https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/16059/16059_2018_Judgement_08-Jan-2019.pdf

Cauliflower Hybrid - SCFH 130

- Alleged by plaintiffs that ex-employees joined competitors, Misappropriation of trade secrets and confidential information regarding breeding strategies and parent lines, leading to development/marketing of a competing cauliflower hybrid.
-Argued by Defendants that PPVFR Act is a complete code, and breeder’s rights to plant varieties can only be enforced after grant of registration under the Act.

- 2006: Sungro’s commercial release of SCFH-130 (‘Katreena’)
- 2013: Suit instituted (CS(OS) No. 1163/2013)

- Sungro cannot maintain the civil suit in a civil court claiming protection of rights in the plant variety before registration under the PPVFR Act.
- ss. 89 and 92 of the Act bar civil courts from hearing disputes covered by the Act’s regulatory scheme.

- PPVFR Act is a complete code, and matters relating to breeder’s rights in plant varieties must be determined under the Act’s statutory machinery - Registrar, Authority and Appellate Tribunal.
- There can be no infringement action or civil cause of action for protection of plant variety rights prior to registration.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33194727/

Pioneer Overseas Corporation

Chairperson, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmer Rights & Ors. (2019) 262 DLT 411

Maize Corn variety: 30V92
Maize Variety: KMH50
Germplasm: Genetic material of plant varieties

Pioneer alleged that KMH50 was identical or extremely similar to its 30V92 and that Kaveri misappropriated Pioneer’s germplasm.

- 22 August 2007: Pioneer application to register maize variety 30V92
- 28 January 2009: Kaveri application to register maize variety KMH50
- 3 May 2010: Kaveri’s application advertised in official journal
- December 2010: Pioneer filed opposition
- 6 May 2013: Pioneer sought special DNA Test
- 27 August 2013: Registrar rejected special test and found both met DUS criteria.
- 9 September 2014: Opposition closed

- Restoring Pioneer’s claims and allowing special DNA test)
- The Authority’s communication that KMH50 was distinct and eligible for registration was invalidated.
- Kaveri failed to file a counter-statement within the statutory time frame: application was deemed abandoned under Section 21(4) of the Act.

- High Court clarified the DUS test is not conclusive in opposition proceedings
- Genetic profiling can be relevant in breeder rights disputes, and the Registrar should consider such evidence.
- Consider breeder objections on merits and cannot terminate opposition solely because both varieties satisfy DUS criteria.

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5d1a4336714d580311101c2e

Pioneer Overseas Corporation

Kaveri Seed Company Liited and Ors.

Maize Corn variety: 30V92
Maize Variety: KMH50
Germplasm: Genetic material of plant varieties

Pioneer alleged that KMH50 was identical or extremely similar to its 30V92 and that Kaveri misappropriated Pioneer’s germplasm.

- 22 August 2007: Pioneer application to register maize variety 30V92
- 28 January 2009: Kaveri application to register maize variety KMH50
- 3 May 2010: Kaveri’s application advertised in official journal
- December 2010: Pioneer filed opposition
- 6 May 2013: Pioneer sought special DNA Test
- 27 August 2013: Registrar rejected special test and found both met DUS criteria.
- 9 September 2014: Opposition closed
- 1 July 2019: Delhi High Court judgment (restoring Pioneer’s claims and allowing special DNA test)

- Stay on the decision of the High Court that held S.24(5) of the PPVFR Act, 2001 unconstitutional.
- Breeders can still use Section 24(5) to seek interim protective directions before registration

- Pioneer filed application under S.24(5) of the Act seeking protection of its breeder interest and special DNA test to determine genetic similarity.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158845474/

The Chairperson of Protection of Plant Varieties and Farms Rights Authority and Ors.

Mr. Uma Kant Dubey challenged a show-cause office memo issued by the PPVFR Authority, proposing termination on the ground that the petitioners’ appointments as Senior Technical Officers were in violation of Rule 20 of the PPVFR Rules, 2003.

15/18 June 2012: Event Date
Show-cause memo
- 19 October 2012: Authority’s 17th Meeting decision resolving to regularize petitioners
- 2012: Writ Petition filed

- The show-cause memo threatening termination was effectively set aside because the Authority had resolved in its 17th Meeting (19 October 2012) to allow the petitioners to continue in their positions and regularize their services.

- Case was decided alongside Ajay Kumar Singh & Anr. v. The Chairperson of Protection of Plant Varieties and Farms Rights Authority and Ors.
- Interpretation of organizational provisions of the PPVFR Act, 2001 and the related PPVFR Rules, 2003 concerning recruitment/appointment procedures for officers/employees of the Authority.
- S.6 of the PPVFR Act, 2001 empowers the Authority to appoint officers and employees necessary for the efficient performance of its functions.
- Rule 20 of the PPVFR Rules, 2003 should not be read as restricting the Authority’s power under Section 6.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/89066597/

Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

hybrid seed technology; parental inbred lines of known hybrid varieties

Challenged a common Registrar order dated 24 May 2012, which held parental inbred lines of known hybrid varieties could not be treated as “novel” and therefore could not be registered as new plant varieties if the hybrid seeds (derived from such lines) had already been sold or otherwise disposed of commercially.

- 24 May 2012 – Impugned Order
- 2012: Multiple writ petitions were filed challenging the impugned order
- January 2015: Judgment delivered

- Affirmed the Registrar’s decision that parental inbred lines of a known hybrid variety cannot be treated as “novel” under Section 15(3) of the PPFVR Act, 2001 if the hybrid seeds derived from parental lines have been sold or otherwise disposed of commercially prior to the filing of an application for registration.
- Even if the parent lines themselves were not sold directly, the sale of hybrid seeds derived from them is sufficient to conclude that the parent lines ceased to be novel.

- Case was decided alongside: Sungro Seeds Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., M/s. Bayer Bioscience Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.
- Novelty (Section 15(3)(a)): A variety is deemed novel if the propagating/harvested material has not been sold or otherwise disposed of for exploitation in India earlier than one year.
- Hybrid seeds are capable of regeneration into a plant and thus fall within the definition of propagating/harvested material.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114868467/

Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr

Two wheat varieties: W6001 and W6301

Challenged the order of the Registrar, which rejected the petitioner's method of computation of renewal fee for registered varieties.
- Average of annual fees paid during the last two years of initial registration: rule 39 vs. Flat rate of Rs. 80,000 per year as per the Second Schedule of the Rules.

- 21 May 2007: Application for registration of varieties
- 21 December 2009: Certificate of Registration issued.
- 17 December 2015: Application for renewal of registration filed
- 21 October 2016: Order rejecting petitioner’s computation of renewal fee.

- Delhi High Court set aside the Registrar’s impugned order.
- Renewal fee must be computed under Rule 39(1)(a) of the Rules (based on the average annual fee paid during the last two years of the initial period).
- Directed to accept the renewal fee as computed by the petitioner and to renew the registration.

- Rule 39 is a special rule specifically governing renewal while the Second Schedule is a general fee schedule.
- Application of “specialia generalibus derogant” (special provisions override general ones), Rule 39 overrides the flat rate in the Second Schedule.
- S.24(6) of the PPVFR Act, 2001 provides that a registration of a variety is valid for six years (for crops) and may be renewed for the remaining period up to the statutory maximum, subject to fees fixed by rules.
- S. 96 permits the Central Government to make rules governing renewal fees: Rule 39 expressly enacted under S.96 to give effect to S.24(6).

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5c3622279eff432605ae8a6b

PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

PepsiCo’s appeal arose from a revocation of its plant variety registration certificate (No. 59 of 2016) which was reaffimed by a single judge Judgment.

- 18 February 2011: Original Application for Registration;
- 16 February 2012: Revised Application
- 1 February 2016: Cetificate of registration
- 17 June 2019: Revocation Application Filed by Respondent
- 3 December 2021: Revocation of registration
- 5 July 2023: Single Judge Judgment Affirming Revocation

- Cross-appeal dismissed.
- Allowed PepsicoAppeal and reinstated their certificate.
- PepsiCo’s renewal application restored and decided by the Registrar.

- Respondent filed a cross-appeal (LPA 644/2023) seeking affirmation of revocation on additional statutory grounds, including alleged violation of farmers’ rights (Section 39(1)(iv)) and public interest. the same was decided within the same petition.
- Clerical misclassification between the extant and new varieties did not justify revocation.
- Mistake in reporting the date of first commercialisation does not render the registration invalid. It did not justify revocation under Section 34(a) of the PPVFR Act.
- Non-submission of a properly executed assignment deed and deficiencies in Form PV-2 (proof of right to apply) are remediable and insufficient grounds of revocation.
- Filing suits against farmers (if any) does not automatically qualify as contrary to public interest.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63328005/ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144350514/

Emergent Genetics India (P) Ltd.

Cotton Hybrid: BRAHMA, KRISHNA, ATAL
Agricultural biotechnology & seed breeding
DNA fingerprinting (RAPD tests)

Alleged that defendants had misappropriated or copied its hybrid seed varieties, selling them under different names, and thus allegedly violated proprietary protections

- January 2004: Suit Filed
- 13 November 2001 to 7 November 2003: Processing/Packaging Agreement
- 2004: Interim (Ex-parte) Injunction granted

- ex-parte interim injunction granted earlier restraining defendants from selling seeds was vacated.
- Genotypic similarity alone (DNA fingerprinting) is not a recognized statutory test under the PPVFR Act to establish proprietary rights or infringement.

- Although much of the plaintiff’s case was framed in terms of copyright and confidentiality, the Court considered the statutory regime under the PPVFR Act to assess whether proprietary rights in seeds exist under Indian law.
- Court referred to PPVFR Act's legislative intent and framework: protection under the Act requires distinctiveness, uniformity, stability and novelty.
- Statutory rights in plant varieties arise only under the PPVFR Act (once a variety is registered and statutory conditions satisfied)

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/183763759/

M/s. Advanta Enterprises Ltd.

Yaganti Agrotech Pvt. Ltd.

Commercial Court of Hyderabad

Hybrid Maize Variety ADV759
Parental Inbred Lines: F330089(Female); M330090(Male)
Genetic and phenotypic testing (DNA and DUS)

Advanta alleged that Yaganti Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. sold maize seeds under the denomination “Bharathi 756 Power” that were deceptively similar to its registered variety ADV759 and its parental lines, without authorization.

- 28 March 2025: Event / Filing Date
Orders (interim injunctions) issued by the Commercial Court of Hyderabadṣ
- Prior to March 2025:Suit and Injunction Proceedings Filed
- 2025 mid year: Kharif Season Argument Raised in Suit - urgency for interim relief.

Commercial Court of Hyderabad granted interim injunctions restraining Yaganti Agrotech and its agents from producing, selling, exporting, or otherwise dealing with the alleged infringing maize seed variety “Bharathi 756 Power”, pending the suit’s final determination.

- S.64 of the Act: infringing rights include selling or producing a registered variety without breeder’s consent or selling a variety with a denomination identical or deceptively similar to a registered one.
- DNA and DUS test reports and expert opinion submitted to the court to show that ADV759 and Bharathi 756 Power shared 31 characteristics, indicating strong similarity
- Court gave weight to potential irreparable harm to Advanta if infringement continued, in the Kharif sowing season

Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd. And Nuzhiveedu Seeds Ltd.

Registrar Of Plant Varieties And Ors.

Constitutional challenge to the validity (vires) of Section 24(5) of the Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001.
The petitioners are seed companies with valuable cotton hybrids (Bunny, Mallika, Bt versions). These varieties are notified under the Seeds Act; Claimed as “extant varieties” under the PPVFR Act; and pending registration under the Act;
They allege competitors have copied and misused their hybrids and parent lines, and have filed registration applications for allegedly derived varieties.
Therefore, Section 24(5) can be invoked either by the petitioners against competitors, or against the petitioners themselves by competitors.

- 2009: W.P.(C) 250/2009 filed
- 2011: W.P.(C) 7102/2011 filed
- 22 April 2016: Reserved for judgment

Struck down Section 24(5) of the Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 as being unconstitutional.
The Court held that Section 24(5) confers overbroad, unguided and arbitrary powers on the Registrar to issue interim orders against “abusive acts” by third parties during the pendency of an application for registration.

- The case was decided alongside Kaveri Seed Company Ltd. v. Registrar of Plant Varieties & Anr.
- The term “abusive act” is undefined, and the provision contains no statutory guidance or safeguards (such as standards for interim relief, hearing procedures, or criteria for decisions); it violates Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution of India.
- The legislative objective: to protect plant breeders and farmers and encourage the development of new varieties. However, the exercise of power under Section 24(5) was unconstrained
- Provision was found to confer arbitrary power without guiding principles, standards or limitations. Observed that quasi-judicial powers must be exercised in compliance with natural justice principles.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/168772125/

- Hybrid seed technology: Abselmoschus Esculentus
- Okra Hybrid Variety - Raadhika: Parental lines AV 508 AND AV 509
- Bindu; NBH-45

- Plaintiff alleged that respondents’ commercialisation of allegedly infringing okra varieties constituted abusive acts against UPL’s breeder interests as under Section 24(5) of the Act.
- Through S. 56 of the PPVFR Act challenged the interpretation of S.24(5).

- 25 July 2022: Application dismissed by Registrar as premature because the variety was not yet registered.
- 18 July 2023 – Delhi High Court passed interim directions, including requiring Registrar’s appearance and sealed financial details.

- Set aside the order of the registrar.
- UPL’s original application under Section 24(5) of the PPVFR Act, 2001 was restored for decision on merits.
- Principles applicable to interim measures: balance of convenience, irreparable harm, and possibility of restitution would apply to Section 24(5) orders.

- Section 24(5) on its face authorises the Registrar to protect a breeder’s interests “during the period between filing of application for registration and decision taken by the Authority”meaning that such protection is available before registration.
- Where an authority misinterprets the statutory text inconsistent with the language and legislative intent, it amounts to a jurisdictional error warranting interference.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96343606/