Introduction
Adding to the judgements issued by various courts regarding the application of Section 3(h) of the Patents Act, 1970 (‘Act’)[1], the Calcutta High Court (‘High Court’), while adjudicating an appeal (IPDPTA/3/2023)[2], clarified that merely because an invention is related to agriculture or horticulture, it cannot be considered non-patentable under Section 3(h) of the Act. The High Court additionally shed light on the allowability of ‘partial grants’ of claims in India. This article examines this decision in detail, focusing on both the issues discussed in the judgement.
Facts of the case
The Appellant filed a National Phase patent application titled ‘Pesticidal Mixture' bearing an application number 753/KOLNP/2009 (‘Application’), on 26 February 2009. The claimed invention was directed towards a pesticidal mixture comprising an anthranilamide compound and at least one fungicidal compound, both described in the specification, along with methods of treating, controlling, preventing and protecting against infestation or infection by parasites involving oral, topical, or parenteral administration of the compound mixture.
A First Examination Report (‘FER’) with a statement of objections was issued against this Application on 13 February 2014. In the FER, the Respondent raised objections under various Sections of the Act, such as lack of novelty under Section 2(1)(j) of the Act, lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja), non-patentability under Sections 3(e), 3(h), and 3(i), and lack of clear and sufficient disclosure under Section 10(4).
The Appellant filed a response to the FER on 29 July 2014, along with amended claims. Thereafter, the Respondent scheduled a hearing and written submissions were filed by the Appellant. On 8 September 2016, the Respondent issued an order directing further amendments in the claims. Particularly, the Respondent considered claims 1-9 and 17 were to be retained and claims 10-16 were to be cancelled, as they were considered non-patentable under Section 3(h) of the Act. However, the Appellant submitted that claims 10-16 did not fall foul of Section 3(h). The application was sent to a different Controller for further adjudication and fresh hearing proceedings were instituted. A hearing was held on 15 November 2017. Written submissions were filed by the Appellant on 30 November 2017. On 5 December 2017, the Controller issued an order to delete claims 10-16, however the Appellant made multiple submissions, reiterating that claims 10-16 did not fall within the ambit of Section 3(h). Owing to non-compliance with the Controller’s order dated 5 December 2017, the Application was refused under Section 15 of the Act. Aggrieved by the decision of the Respondent, the Appellant filed the appeal.
The Appellant's counsel stated that Section 3(h) was misinterpreted and arbitrarily applied to the method claims 10-16. Further, the Appellant was not given any opportunity of being heard before the Respondent decided to refuse the Application. The Appellant also asserted that in any event, the Respondent should have granted a partial grant for claims 1-9 and 17.
The Respondent’s counsel, on the other hand, argued that the interpretation of Section 3(h) of the Act did not warrant any interference. Further, the Respondent’s counsel argued that there was no provision in the Act for granting any partial grant for the claims deemed allowable.
Decision
Referring to the Patents (Amendments) Act 2002[3] , which removed ‘plants’ from the scope of Section 3(i) of the Act[4] and the recommendations in the Ayyangar Committee’s report of 1959, the High Court stated that Section 3(h) of the Act warrants a precise and narrowly tailored interpretation. In particular, paragraph 331 of the Ayyangar Committee Report of 1959 (also cited by the High Court) states that ‘Patents for inventions in the field of plant propagation by asexual methods [which would fall under para. (d)] are specifically permitted by the Patents Acts of the U.S.A. and of South Africa, but not in any other country. They have never been granted in India and the enactment of para (d) will remove any doubt that might exist as regards the patentability of such inventions’[5]. Therefore, it is clear that the purpose of Section 3(h) of the Act was to exclude inventions in the field of plant propagation by asexual methods.
Further, the intent behind Section 3(h) of the Act is ‘to preserve traditional and essential public interest activities such as farming and gardening from being monopolized through exclusive rights.’[6] As discussed in the matter of Mitsui Chemicals Inc v. Controller of Patents 2024[7], the Court emphasized that while analyzing the applicability of Section 3(h), the Controller must distinguish between purely agricultural methods and those with technical or scientific foundations which address agricultural problems. Thus, if the claimed invention is not directly linked to traditional agricultural activities, it cannot be considered non-patentable under Section 3(h). The Court stressed that growing innovations in the field of agriculture should not be denied patent protection solely because of broad textual construction. While examining the refused claims, the Court stated that the claims were directed to a combination of compounds involving human and scientific and technical intervention, an aspect that was not addressed in the impugned order. Further, there was no reason provided in the impugned order to conclude that the claimed invention fell under Section 3(h). Consequently, the Court ruled that the Respondent’s conclusion that the patent application was a method of agriculture under Section 3(h) was incorrect, highlighting that ‘a broad and literal interpretation whereby anything remotely to do with agriculture or horticulture is deemed to be unpatentable is unsupportable’[8].
With regard to the request for a partial grant of claims 1-9 and 17, which were deemed allowable by the Patent Office, the High Court said that the request was fundamentally flawed, stating that ‘A ‘partial grant’ of a patent, wherein some claims are accepted while others are left unresolved, unpatentable, or indefinitely pending is not contemplated within the statutory framework of the Act or the Rules’[9]. As per the Act, a patent is granted only when an application has been wholly put ‘in order for grant’. Under Section 15 of the Act, the Controller may direct the Applicant to amend any claim not meeting the requirements or cancel the same. Neither the Act nor the Rules envisage keeping certain claims indefinitely pending while allowing partial grant of others. The Court held that ‘the claims of a specification relate to a single inventive concept and the grant of a partial patent is destructive to the entire basis for a single inventive concept.’[10] Permitting fragmented or partial claims undermines this core requirement and paves the way for vague monopolies, unwarranted extensions of protection, and undue benefits to applicants at the expense of statutory discipline. Further, retaining partially accepted claims within a single application also goes against the rationale of Section 16 of the Act, which gives the Applicant an option to file a separate application for a distinct invention disclosed in the specification. If Applicants are permitted to leave rejected or unrelated claims pending in cases of a partially granted parent application, there would be no incentive to file divisional applications.
Accordingly, the High Court concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable and set the same aside, remanding the application back to the Respondent to freshly examine the application after giving an opportunity to the Applicant to be heard. Thereafter, hearing proceedings were instituted by the Patent Office and the Application was granted vide patent number 575675 on 11 December 2025.
Conclusion
The High Court’s decision in this matter has provided additional support to the judgements in Decco[11] (also discussed in detail in our article[12]) and Mitsui[13], that methods of treatment of plants cannot be objected under Section 3(h), which covers traditional methods of agriculture. It is clear that Section 3(h) of the Act only excludes inventions in the field of plant propagation by asexual methods. However, it remains to be seen whether Controllers will apply Section 3(h) in view of the established jurisprudence.
[The authors are Associate and Partner, respectively, in IPR practice at Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys, New Delhi]
[1] Section 3(h) in The Patents Act, 1970 (indiankanoon.org)
[2] Base Se (Oa/7/2019/Pt/Kol) v. Deputy Controller Of Patents And ... on 16 September, 2025
[3] The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002
[4] Section 3(i) in The Patents Act, 1970 (indiankanoon.org)
[5] 1959-_Justice_N_R_Ayyangar_committee_report.pdf
[6] Base Se (Oa/7/2019/Pt/Kol) v. Deputy Controller Of Patents And ... on 16 September, 2025
[7] Mitsui Chemicals Inc v. Controller Of Patents, on 23 February, 2024
[8] Base Se (Oa/7/2019/Pt/Kol) v. Deputy Controller Of Patents And ... on 16 September, 2025
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Decco Worldwide Postharvest ... v. The Controller Of Patents And ... on 13 June, 2022 (indiankanoon.org)
[12] Patent of method of treating a plant – Interpretation of Section 3(h) | Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys
[13] Mitsui Chemicals Inc v. Controller Of Patents on 23 February, 2024
