Summary
In Base SE v. Deputy Controller of Patents, the Calcutta High Court ruled that scientific and technical inventions addressing agricultural problems are not excluded under Section 3(h). It also clarified that partial grant of patent claims is not permitted under Indian patent law.
In the case of Base SE v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, the Calcutta High Court set aside the rejection of a patent application under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court clarified the limited scope of Section 3(h), and held that technical and scientific solutions related to agriculture cannot be excluded as mere “methods of agriculture”. It also ruled that partial grants of patent claims are not permissible under the Patents Act.
Background
Base SE filed an Indian Patent Application no. 753/KOLNP/2009 titled “Pesticidal Mixtures Comprising an Anthranilamide Compound” in 2009. The invention protects crops from pests using a mixture of an anthranilamide compound and one or more fungicides. The application was initially filed with 24 claims, later amended and reduced to 17 following objections in the First Examination Report (FER) under Sections 2(1)(j), 3(e), 3(h), and 3(i) of the Patents Act.
After several hearings and written submissions, the Controller allowed Claims 1–9 and 17, but rejected Claims 10–16 under Section 3(h), and refused the application, directing the applicant to make further amendments. The applicant challenged the rejection order before the Calcutta High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act.
Issues Before the Court:
-
- Whether the impugned order was appealable under Section 117A or deemed to be an abandonment under Section 21.
- Whether the invention was patentable under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act.
- Whether a partial grant of patent claims is permissible under Indian law.
Key Arguments:
Base SE contended that section 3(h) of the Patents Act had no application to its invention, as the mixture involved technical and scientific interventions rather than a mere method of agriculture. It argued that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice because no effective opportunity of hearing was granted, and its written submissions were not considered. Base SE further submitted that the Controller misinterpreted Section 3(h) by adopting an overbroad view that excluded innovations addressing agricultural challenges through compounds. Base SE also relied on precedent to assert that its claims were based on technical intervention and not mere agricultural practices.
The Controller contended that the appeal was not maintainable as the order was passed under Section 21 of the Act. It was also argued that the claims were rightly rejected under Section 3(h), and that the concept of partial grant of patent claims is not contemplated under the Patents Act or the Rules.
Court’s Observation and Analysis:
Regarding Appealability and Nature of the Order:
The Court observed that the impugned order was issued under section 15 of the Patents Act after considering the merits, not under Section 21, as there was no conscious act by Base SE to abandon the application. Relying on Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v. Union of India (2010) 44 PTC 249 (Del) and The European Union v. Union of India 2022:DHC:2301, the Court clarified that abandonment under Section 21 arises only when the applicant fails to act within time, not where the Controller considers the merits and issues a reasoned order. The Court held that the rejection was based on a substantive evaluation of claims and was therefore appealable.
Regarding Section 3(h):
On Section 3(h), the Court held that the present application could not be considered as a method of agriculture. The Court emphasized that Section 3(h) does not exclude scientific or technical methods used to solve agricultural problems. Accordingly, the Court noted that there was a clear combination of compounds involving human and scientific and technical intervention which was contemplated under the invention, and that this aspect of the matter was ignored in the refusal order. The impugned order, according to the Court, failed to address these distinctions and was therefore legally unsustainable.
On Partial Grant of Claims:
The Court held that a partial grant of patent wherein some claims are accepted while others are left unresolved, unpatentable, or indefinitely pending, is not allowable within the statutory framework of the Act or the Rules. The Court further clarified that a patent is granted only when the application as a whole is put in order for grant, whether through amendment or deletion of claims by the Applicant. The Controller has no express power to allow part of the claims and reject others. The Court added that partial grants undermine the principle of unity of invention
Conclusion:
The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Controller for fresh consideration. It directed the Controller to provide a hearing to the applicant and dispose of the application in accordance with law within three months. The Court also clarified that the Controller is not bound by any observation or finding in the order and must consider the application afresh.
Citation:
Base SE v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, IPDPTA/3/2023, Calcutta High Court, decided on 16 September 2025.
Available on: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/108077861/
Article review and Accessibility review by: Gaurav Mishra
