Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights (PPV&FR) Act, 2001
Objectives:
To establish an effective system for the protection of plant varieties, the rights of farmers and plant breeders and to encourage the development of new varieties of plants.
To recognize and protect the rights of farmers in respect of their contributions made at any time in conserving, improving and making available plant genetic resources for the development of new plant varieties.
To accelerate agricultural development in the country, protect plant breeders’ rights; stimulate investment for research and development both in public & private sector for the development new of plant varieties.
Facilitate the growth of seed industry in the country which will ensure the availability of high quality seeds and planting material to the farmers.
‘What is FL 2027’?
Potato plant variety used in Lay’s chips.
FL 2027 is a ‘chipping potato’ variety with low external defects, high dry matter/high solids content and stable sugars, all of which make it highly suitable for the manufacture of chips.
Why did the Delhi High Court reject PepsiCo India’s patent appeal for its unique Lays’ potato?
The Delhi High Court held that there was “no merit” in the appeal filed by PepsiCo over the patent rights for its ‘unique potato’ variety.
The PPVFRA revoked PepsiCo’s registration with respect to its potato plant variety, ‘FL 2027’ on the grounds provided under Section 34 (grounds for revocation of registration) of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2001.
In relation to Section 34(a) (incorrect information furnished), it was discovered that PepsiCo had sought the registration of FL 2027 variety as a “new variant” instead of an “extant variant” in its application.
The court held that FL 2027 could not fulfil the criteria of novelty and was only eligible for registration under “extant variety”.
What are grounds for revocation?
According to Section 34 of the PPV&FR Act, the protection granted to a breeder may be revoked by the authority on the following grounds —
That the grant of a registration certificate is based on incorrect information furnished by the applicant;
When the breeder does not provide the registrar with the required documents;
A failure to provide an alternative denomination for variety registration in case the earlier variety provided is not permissible for registration;
A failure of the breeder to provide the required seeds for compulsory licence;
Failure to comply with the acts, directions issued by the Authority;
If the grant of the registration certificate is against public interest.
COMMENTS