Monsanto’s BT Cotton Patent Plea Snubbed by Delhi HC
Cotton and other monocultured crops require an intensive use of pesticides as various types of pests attack these crops causing extensive damage. Over the past 40 years, many pests have developed resistance to pesticides.
So far, the only successful approach to engineering crops for insect tolerance has been the addition of Bt toxin, a family of toxins originally derived from soil bacteria. These toxins are effective against a variety of economically important crop pests but pose no hazard to non-target organisms like mammals and fish. Three Bt crops are now commercially available: corn, cotton, and potato.
As of now, cotton is the most popular of the Bt crops: it was planted on about 1.8 million acres (728437 ha) in 1996 and 1997. The Bt gene was isolated and transferred from a bacterium bacillus thurigiensis to American cotton. The American cotton was subsequently crossed with Indian cotton to introduce the gene into native varieties.
When Monsanto wanted to introduce Bt Cotton into India, it did so through a partnership with Mahyco, a well-known seed company based in Maharashtra to form Monsanto-Mahyco Biotech (MMB). Monsanto provided the technology and Mahyco would produce local
seeds and distribute them.This way Monsanto ensures the spread of the technology while it takes a share of profits from each of the seed companies. Today Monsanto has a clear monopoly in the Bt Cotton market, which is why they can sell each seed packet at the same price that they do in the USA. However during the time of crop failure the company is not around to take on the liability in addition to all the harassment of farmers.
And in order to curb this unhealthy situation, the government cut royalties that local seed companies pay to Monsanto, for the second time in two years. This follows previous attempts to defang Monsanto.
In a landmark judgment, the Delhi HC order turned down Monsanto India’s patent on Bt cotton technology- thereby ending a prolonged row between the US agri-biotech major and seed companies in India over the issue of the patent over the plant material. The court also said that the seed companies will pay the trait value as ascertained by the Government.
As a result, the patent held by Monsanto, through its Indian arm Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech Ltd (MMBL) over its Bollgard-II Bt cotton seed technology, a genetically modified variant which resists the bollworm pest, was decreed to be unenforceable in India.
The division bench of justices Ravindra Bhat and Yogesh Khanna, however, permitted MMBL to approach the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority (PPVFRA) under the agriculture ministry for registering the variety within three months, following which the authority will decide on a benefit-sharing mechanism. Currently, trait fees on Bt cotton seeds are decided by a price control committee under the agriculture ministry.
The court’s order came in a case filed in 2015 by Monsanto, through MMBL, against Nuziveedu Seeds and its subsidiaries for selling Bt cotton seeds using its patented technology despite termination of a licence agreement in November 2015. The order and the court’s interpretation of section 3(j) of the Patents Act, 1970, may prove to be an impediment for entry of new technology in Indian agriculture as technology developers will lose pricing freedom.
Reacting to the judgment, a spokesperson for Monsanto India in a statement said: “As a company focused on bringing relevant innovation to India’s farmers, MMB (Mahyco Monsanto Biotech) is very disappointed with today’s order by the Delhi High Court. Over the years MMB has conducted its business in adherence with all applicable laws of India and all our patents were granted after due review under these laws. Today’s order will have wide-ranging, negative implications for biotech-based innovation across many sectors within India, and is inconsistent with other international markets where agricultural innovation has flourished.”
After the verdict was pronounced, Monsanto sought that the decision be kept in abeyance for a few weeks so that it could file an appeal in the Supreme Court. The high court declined to keep the operation of its decision in Bench, but granted the US company a certificate of fitness to file an appeal in the apex court.
