Articles by Dr. Shiva
Comparison original Vs amended claim
| Original Claim | Implication | Amended Claim | Action | |
| Title | "Basmati rice lines and grains" | Making Basmati a Generic term - Basmati is not a generic term and is associated only with a long grain rice of a unique aroma and flovour peculiar to the Indian subcontinent. | Rice Lines Bas 867, RT1117, and RT1121 | No evidence shows the government intention of preventing the RiceTec to use the term "Basmati" as a general term |
| Abstract | The invention relates to novel rice lines and to plants and grains of these lines and to a method for breeding these lines. The invention also relates to a novel means for determining the cooking and starch properties of rice grains and its use in identifying desirable rice lines. Specifically, one aspect of the invention relates to novel rice lines whose plants are semi-dwarf in stature, substantially photoperiod insensitive and high yielding, and produce rice grains having characteristics similar or superior to those of good quality basmati rice. Another aspect of the invention relates to novel rice grains produced from novel rice lines. The invention provides a method for breeding these novel lines. A third aspect of the invention relates to the finding that the "starch index" (SI) of a rice grain can predict the grain's cooking and starch properties, to a method based thereon for identifying grains that can be cooked to the firmness of traditional basmati rice preparations, and to the use of this method in selecting desirable segregants in rice breeding programs. | The invention relates to novel rice lines Bas 867, RT1117, and RT1121 and to plants and grains of these lines. The novel rice lines are semi-dwarf in stature, substantially photoperiod insensitive and high yielding, and produce rice grains having characteristics similar or superior to those of good quality basmati rice. Another aspect of the invention relates to novel rice grains produced from novel rice lines. | RiceTec amended the abstract of the patent in view of cancellation of 15 Claims including four withdrawn earlier. | |
|
Claim 1 A very Broad Scope of the Patent |
A rice plant, which plant when cultivated in North, Central or South America, or Caribbean Islands a) has a mature height of about 80 cm to about 140 cm; b) is substantially photoperiod insensitive; and c) produces rice grains having i) an average starch index of about 27 to about 35, ii) an average 2-acetyl-1-pyrroline content of about 150 ppb to about 2,000 ppb, iii) an average length of about 6.2 mm to about 8.0 mm, an average width of about 1.6 mm to about 1.9 mm, and an average length to width ratio of about 3.5 to about 4.5, iv) an average of about 41% to about 67% whole grains, and v) an average lengthwise increase of about 75% to about 150% when cooked. | Very Broad Claims on the characteristic of the RiceTec plant e.g. height of plants, photoperiod insensitivity, starch index, average 2-acetyl-1-pyrroline etc. These characteristics are inherently present in the Bas 370 Basmati variety as prior art. In fact most of Indian Basmati varieties has thee characteristics. Growing rice plants having these characteristics in North, Central or South America, or Caribbean Islands would have constituted an infringement of the patent. Though RiceTec patent does not extend to India, yet with the removal of quantitative restriction the plants can be imported in India. India being signatory of Paris Convention supported by the passage of Patent (Second) Amendment Bill could also had led to a disastrous impact on the Indian farmers and Indian Basmati because all Indian Basmati varieties and rice varieties falls under the charectiertistics of the Claim 1. | Cancelled | Not Challenged by Government of India |
| Patent over Rice Plants | Claim 1,2,3,5,6,7,10 | All these Claims are on the rice plants. The Charecteristics mentioned in the claims were not Novel and are found in the Indian rice Plants including Basmati Varieties e.g. Indian Basmati 370 and Type 3 Basmati, characteristics of which was published in the IARI Bulletin Number 30 of 1980, have these characteristics which are being claimed as "novel" by RiceTec. The traits claimed in the patent imply a curtailment of the seed sovereignty of the rice peasants of all Asian countries growing rice with these traits. | Cancelled | By not challenging these claims Government of India denied of recognition of "prior art" and the innovations of millions of farmers involved in the development of the rice varieties. |
| Patents over Grains | Claim 4, 13, 15, 16, 17 | These were very braod claims on the grain of the rice plants which could have a great impact on the exports of Basmati or any rice from India to US. The Claim 13 was quite broad which included rice grain derived from seed of all the plants claimed under 1 to 11. | Claim 4 and 15 to 17 have been withdrawn by RiceTec. But Claim 13 has been amended as " a Rice Grain derived from the seed of claim 12." And Clim12 has been amended to "A seed produced by the rice plant of any of claims 8, 9, and 11" which are varieties develop by RiceTec. | Government of India did not challenge the Claim 13. Though the characteristics of the claim 13 were qute obvious for any one skilled in the art a well as in view of the prior art of the basmati vareities Bas 370 and Type-3 Basmati developed by IARI. |
| Patent over Seed | Claim 12 which included seed produced by rice plant of any of the claim from 1 to 11. | It was a very broad claim over seed of all the rice plants including Basmati rice. Because Most of India and Asian rice plants fall within the characteristics of the rice plants claimed as invention by RiceTec. | Amended to A seed produced by the rice plant of any of claims 8, 9, and 11" which refers to three varieties Bas 867, RT1117, and RT1121 develop by RiceTec. | Government of India did not challenge such a broad claim on the seed of plants which RiceTec claimed as their invention with very broad traits commonly found in most of Indian and Asian rice varieties. If not amended RiceTec could have claimed all Indian and Asian indigenous rice varieties as their invention. |
| Patent over Progeny | Claim 14 is directed to the "progeny" plants of the rice plants under claims 1 to 11. | The bare word "progeny" is considered to be very broad that it could include the offspring of RiceTec's "novel" variety of plant, repeatedly back-crossed with, for example, Indian Bas 370. | Cancelled | Government of India did not challenge this wide claim over progeny. |
| Patent over method of selection of a rice plant for breeding for breeding or propagation | Claims 18 to 20 directly refer to cultivation of "a rice plant". The language used indicates a is very broad claim and it encompasses all and any rice plant. This covers seed collection. RiceTec claims to have not only `invented' a novel rice line but also its cultivation. Seed growing and seed selection of "a rice plant" is brought under the ambit of the patent. | Claims 18 to 20 are not restricted particularly to Basmati rice grain. The reference is to "a" rice plant which implies any rice plant and these claims assert as RiceTec's property the preparing of rice grains from rice seeds, selecting a seed from said plant, growing said seed into a plant, cooking a sample of said grains. This is the claim on nature's creativity and cannot be recognised as an act of human invention. By not challenging these claims and allowing them to be upheld would have implied treating these daily practices based on farmers' innovations and women's innovations as an invention of RiceTec. In other words, RiceTec would have an exclusive 20 years monopoly on the natural reproduction of rice. On an operative level this means that rice farmers from the Third World could be prevented from carrying out their regular activities of rice cultivation and cooking since a patent is a right to exclude others from distribute, selling, using and making the invented product. | Cancelled | By not challenging these broad claims by RiceTec on the Selection and reproduction on the Rice per se would have had a far reaching consequences and the Indian farmers and the people in general would have been implicated for infringement of RiceTec patent. |
 |
 |
 |