Independent educational platform. Not a government website and not the Indian Patent Office. Who we are
MYCrave Consultancy & Services PatentActIndia.comA MYCrave Initiative
Patents ActPatents RulesProcessGuidesToolsForms A–ZForms & FeesCase lawCompareWhat happens if…Who is applyingDeadlinesGlossaryWorked examplesUpdatesSearchSite mapAsk a QuestionMy LibraryConsult MYCrave
Case note

Monsanto Technology LLC & Others v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. & Others

The question before the court

Whether an appellate court could decide at the interim stage that a biotechnology patent was excluded from patentability and revoke it.

What the court held

The Court set aside the appellate order and restored the trial judge's interim arrangement, sending the suit back for trial. It held that a challenge of this kind rests on technical material and expert evidence, so it cannot be resolved summarily while an injunction application is being argued. The appellate court should have limited itself to whether the interim order was sound. All questions of fact and law about the patent, including the objection based on the exclusion for plants and biological processes, were expressly left open.

Why it matters to a reader of this provision

This is the leading Indian authority on what a court may and may not decide at the interim stage of a patent suit. It matters to readers of the revocation provisions and of the exclusions in section 3, because it keeps the question of interim relief separate from the question of whether the patent survives. It also frames the continuing argument about patents that touch plants and seeds.

Read the judgment ↗

Provisions this judgment interprets

Open a provision for the plain-language explanation, the worked example and the forms and deadlines it touches.

Does this judgment affect your matter?

Whether a decision helps or hurts depends entirely on your facts and your claims. A patent professional can tell you which.