What was the main legal fight about?

A patent and contract dispute over Bollgard (Bt) technology, trait fee payments, and whether the patent could be invalidated without a full trial.

What does Section 3(j) say?

It excludes plants and animals in whole or any part, including seeds and varieties, from patentability under the Indian Patents Act.

Why did the Supreme Court step in?

Because the Division Bench invalidated the patent without a proper trial, despite complex scientific issues needing evidence and expert input.

Did Monsanto consent to summary adjudication?

No. The Supreme Court noted there was no reason to read consent for deciding patent validity summarily without evidence.

What happened to the injunction request?

The Supreme Court restored the Single Judge’s approach that had refused the counterclaim at the interim stage and emphasized trial for complex validity issues.

Law Easy

02 November, 2025

351

Monsanto Technology v. Nuziveedu Seeds (2017) — Section 3(j), Patents & Contracts | The Law Easy

Monsanto Technology v. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited (2017)

A simple guide to Section 3(j), licensing duties, and why patent validity should not be decided without a full trial when science is complex.

```

Supreme Court of India 2017–2018 — 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7652 Patent & Contract ~6 min read

Section 3(j) Patents Act summary invalidation Bt cotton trait fee

```

CASE_TITLE: Monsanto Technology v. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited
AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi
LOCATION: India

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 3(j), patent invalidation, joint reading of patent & contract, summary adjudication
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Bollgard, Bt trait, trait fee, license termination, Delhi High Court, Supreme Court

PUBLISH_DATE: 01 Nov 2025 Slug: monsanto-technology-v-nuziveedu-seeds-limited

```

Quick Summary

Monsanto licensed its Bt (Bollgard) technology to Nuziveedu. A payment dispute led to contract termination and a lawsuit. The Delhi High Court’s Division Bench revoked the patent using Section 3(j). The Supreme Court said: patent validity in such a technical matter should not be decided without a full trial and expert evidence. Monsanto had not consented to summary adjudication. The case was sent back, and the interim counterclaim route was not the right place to kill the patent.

Issues

Did the petitioner agree to a summary decision on patent validity?
Could the Division Bench invalidate the patent without trial on complex science?

Rules

Section 3(j), Patents Act, 1970: Plants and animals in whole or any part (including seeds and varieties) are not patentable.
Contract Obligations: Parties must honour agreed terms (e.g., trait fee) unless lawfully ended.
Procedure: Complex validity questions usually need pleadings, evidence, and expert testimony before a final decision.

Citation: Monsanto Technology v. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7652.

Facts (Timeline)

2003 — License: Monsanto licenses Bollgard technology to Nuziveedu; trait fee payable.

2015 — Termination & Suit: Monsanto ends the contract for non-payment and sues for patent & trademark infringement. Nuziveedu counterclaims to revoke the patent.

Single Judge (Delhi HC): Finds termination valid; allows continued use if trait fee is paid.

Division Bench (Delhi HC): Revokes the patent citing Section 3(j); says transgenic plants with integrated Bt trait via hybridization fall outside patentability.

Supreme Court: Says no to summary invalidation; scientific issues require trial and expert evidence.

Timeline of events in Monsanto v. Nuziveedu patent and contract dispute

Arguments

Appellant (Monsanto)

No consent to decide validity summarily.
Complex biotech issues need expert evidence.
Contract breach: non-payment of trait fees.

Respondent (Nuziveedu)

Section 3(j)
Integration into plants through hybridization is non-patentable.

License terms and public policy favour revocation.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that Monsanto’s stance was correct on procedure. There was no basis to treat the case as if Monsanto had agreed to a quick decision on validity. The Division Bench should not have invalidated the patent at the interim stage without trial and expert material. The Single Judge’s approach, which did not decide the counterclaim at the injunction stage, was the proper course.

Ratio

In patent cases involving complex biotechnology, courts should avoid final rulings on validity at interim stages. Unless parties clearly consent and the record is sufficient, evidence and expert testimony are essential before invalidation. Section 3(j) analysis must rest on a full factual foundation.

Why It Matters

Sets a procedural guardrail: no shortcut to patent invalidation in technical fields.

Clarifies the role of expert evidence in Section 3(j) disputes.

Shows how contract claims (trait fees) and patent claims can travel together.

Key Takeaways

Section 3(j) needs facts + experts.

No consent = no summary validity ruling.

Interim stage ≠ final invalidation.

Licenses bind until lawfully ended.

Trait fee obligations matter.

Remand for proper trial is appropriate.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “SCIENCE? SEEK TRIAL.”

Consent? No clear consent → no summary invalidation.

Complex? Biotech + Section 3(j) → need experts.

Stage? Interim ≠ final; send to trial.

IRAC

Issue Rule Application Conclusion

Could the patent be invalidated summarily under Section 3(j) without trial? Section 3(j) non-patentability; need for evidence/expert input for complex scientific questions; consent principle. Record showed disputed science; no clear consent to summary decision; interim stage unsuitable for final invalidation. Summary invalidation improper; matter must go to trial; Single Judge’s approach preferred.

Glossary

Section 3(j)

Clause that excludes plants, seeds, and varieties from patentability in India.

Trait Fee

Payment for using licensed technology embedded in seeds.

Summary Adjudication

Quick decision without full trial; risky in complex science disputes.

FAQs

No. The Supreme Court said there was no such consent, so summary invalidation was not justified.

It deals with what cannot be patented in India—plants, seeds, and varieties. Applying it needs careful facts and science.

The matter goes back for a full trial, with pleadings, evidence, and expert testimony before any final validity ruling.

Yes. Contract terms like trait fee and termination remained important and had to be tested on evidence.

Related Cases

Biotechnology & Patents

Illustrative — Cases requiring expert evidence before applying exclusions.

License & Trait Fees

Illustrative — Disputes on royalties/trait values in IP licenses.

Issue	Rule	Application	Conclusion
Could the patent be invalidated summarily under Section 3(j) without trial?	Section 3(j) non-patentability; need for evidence/expert input for complex scientific questions; consent principle.	Record showed disputed science; no clear consent to summary decision; interim stage unsuitable for final invalidation.	Summary invalidation improper; matter must go to trial; Single Judge’s approach preferred.

Quick Nav

Quick Summary Issues Rules Facts Arguments Judgment Ratio Why It Matters Key Takeaways Mnemonic IRAC Glossary FAQs Related

```

Reviewed by The Law Easy

Patent Law Contract Section 3(j) Case Law

Comment

Nothing for now