BASE SE Vs. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs

Partial Grant of Patent

Fact:The matter concerns the rejection of a patent application by the Deputy Controller and its subsequent appeal under the Patents Act, 1970.The case begin with a patent application filed on 26 February 2009 titled "Pesticidal Mixtures Comprising an Anthranilamide Compound." It contained originally 24 claims related to a chemical mixture used to protect plants from harmful fungi and pests. 

The application was subjected to the examination process under the provisions of the Patents Act, and a First Examination Report (FER) dated 13 October 2014 objected to the claims under sections 2(ij), 3(e), 3(h), and 3(i). The applicant then amended the claims, reducing them to 18 and modifying the invention's title.

Partial allowance of Claims:After successive hearings and further amendments, claims 1 to 9 and 17 were accepted and others (claims 10 to 16) were rejected under section 3(h) of the Act. The Deputy Controller directed the applicant to amend the rejected claims. 

The Appeal:The appellant challenged this decision on several grounds: that section 3(h) was wrongly applied, there was a violation of natural justice due to inadequate hearing opportunities, and partial grant of patent was warranted. The appellant supported their case by referencing several judgments, including Siemens Engineering Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. vs. Union of India (1976) 2 SCC 981 and unreported decisions relevant to patent law.

On the other side, the respondent argued that the impugned order was passed under section 21 of the Patents Act and hence not appealable. They also held that no partial patent grant was permissible under the law, and the appellant's contentions had no merit.

Discussion:The Court meticulously examined the legal provisions relevant to the issues. Sections 3(h), 3(i), 3(j), 15, and 21 of the Patents Act, 1970, formed the backbone of the legal analysis. Section 3(h) excludes methods of agriculture or horticulture from patentability. Section 3(i) excludes plants and animals except micro-organisms and biological processes related to their propagation. Sections 15 and 21 govern the Controller's power to refuse and the time frames for compliance and abandonment.

Importantly, the Court emphasized that the exclusion under section 3(h) is policy-driven, aimed at preserving traditional agricultural practices from monopolization. The Court relied on recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee and judicial pronouncements such as Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd., 2019 3 SCC 381 and the recent unreported decisions from the Delhi and Calcutta High Courts. It clarified that section 3(h) excludes pure agricultural methods but does not bar technical, scientific innovations at the interface of agriculture and chemistry.

The impugned order was criticized for failing to distinguish between a pure method of agriculture and human scientific inventions embodied in chemical mixtures. The Court found no reasoning in the order to support the application of section 3(h), holding that this represents a narrow exception to patentability that does not include inventions like the present one.

Partial Grant of Patent:Regarding the issue of partial patent grant, the Court categorically held that the legislative scheme does not allow splitting claims within a single application into granted and rejected parts. The applicant must put the entire application in order for grant. Partial grants would disrupt the unity of invention principle and encourage legal uncertainty. Instead, rejected claims could be pursued via separate divisional applications under section 16 of the Act.

Finally, the Court dealt with procedural challenges about appealability and natural justice. It distinguished the impugned order as a decision under section 15 rather than a deemed abandonment under section 21, allowing the appeal to proceed. It further held that the appellant had not abandoned the application and had responded to objections within prescribed timelines, negating any claim of procedural unfairness.

Decision:The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. It directed the Controller of Patents and Designs to reconsider the application afresh, complying with statutory procedures and principles within three months. The Court emphasized proper hearing rights for the applicant and clarified that the Controller was not bound by this order's observations, maintaining judicial neutrality on merits pending re-examination.

This judgment significantly clarifies the interpretation of sections 3(h) and 3(i) of the Patents Act, reinforcing the limited scope of exclusions and safeguarding the patent rights of innovations that intersect with agriculture but involve human technical intervention. It also reaffirms procedural safeguards in patent prosecution and rejects any notion of partial patent grants, emphasizing statutory coherence and legal certainty.

Case Title: BASE SE Vs. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs  

Order Date: 16 September 2025  

Case Number: IPDPTA 3 of 2023  

Name of Court: High Court at Calcutta

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur  

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi