Representational image of PepsiCo snacks
| Photo Credit: The Hindu
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order revoking PepsiCo India’s patent registration in respect of a potato variety known as ‘FL-2027’ used for making chips.
The High Court, on January 9, set aside a decision of a single judge Bench that upheld the statutory authority’s ruling to revoke the certificate of registration granted to PepsiCo for ‘FL 2027’.
“The renewal application as made by PepsiCo shall stand restored on the file of the Registrar who shall dispose of the same in accordance with law and in light of the findings recorded hereinabove,” the court directed.
The court also dismissed a cross appeal by farm rights activist Kavitha Kuruganti.
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing Ms. Kuruganti, submitted that the cause for filing of a revocation application arose when PepsiCo sued farmers in Gujarat citing intellectual property right infringement.
The initiation of revocation proceedings, according to Mr. Gonsalves, was necessitated in order to safeguard the legitimate entitlement of farmers. He submitted that the institution of those vexatious proceedings was aimed at intimidating and harassing farmers and preventing them from exercising their rights.
Senior advocate Dayan Krishnan, representing PepsiCo, submitted that the multinational company was entitled to apply for registration. He said Dr. Robert Hoopes, the original breeder, had assigned all rights in the subject plant ‘FL 2027’ variety in favour of Recot Inc..
Mr. Krishnan contended that PepsiCo had placed before the authorities the Assignment Deed, the certificate showing the change of the corporate name of Recot. Inc to FLNA (FritoLay North America), as well as the letter of the latter conferring a right on PepsiCo to move for registration.
Incorrect info
The single judge Bench had affirmed the revocation of PepsiCo’s patent on various grounds, including that it furnished incorrect information relating to the date of first commercial sale as well as a purported failure on its part to proffer and present requisite documentation at the time of applying for registration.
The High Court on Tuesday said the power of revocation was liable to be invoked only in situations where a plant variety which was otherwise ineligible to be accorded protection was conferred registration.
The court further observed that besides a mere reference to various suits by PepsiCo, Ms. Kuruganti “failed to establish or prove that those suits were vexatious or that they had been instituted as part of predatory tactics of PepsiCo”.
