Delhi High Court restores PepsiCo's potato patent amid legal battle

The Delhi High Court, led by Justice Yashwant Varma on Tuesday, overturned a previous ruling that revoked PepsiCo India's patent registration for a specific potato variety used in chip production.

This is based on a PTI report.

The division bench, which included Justice Dharmesh Sharma, allowed PepsiCo's appeal against the earlier decision and reinstated its renewal application, directing that the matter be decided by law and dismissing the cross-appeal by farm rights activist Kavitha Kuruganti.

This decision follows a legal battle that saw the court setting aside the revocation order issued by the Authority under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act.

The court, in its ruling, stated, "The appeal of PepsiCo, LPA 590/2023 is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 5 July 2023 shall consequently stand set aside to the extent indicated above."

Additionally, the bench set aside the revocation order issued by the Authority on December 3, 2021, along with the letter issued on February 11, 2022, rejecting the renewal application.

The renewal application made by PepsiCo will now be reconsidered by the Registrar in accordance with the court's findings.

The initial revocation by a single judge was grounded on various reasons, including allegations that PepsiCo provided incorrect information regarding the date of the first commercial sale and failed to present necessary documentation during the registration process.

However, the division bench disagreed, emphasising that the power of revocation should only be exercised when a certificate of registration contradicts the law's protection or when an ineligible plant variety is granted registration.

The court explicitly stated, "We find ourselves unable to uphold the view taken by the learned Single Judge insofar as it holds against PepsiCo and about an incorrect mentioning of the date of first sale as well as the conclusions ultimately rendered in the context of the eligibility of PepsiCo to apply for registration and non-submission of relevant documentation."

Farm rights activist Kavitha Kuruganti argued that the revocation proceedings were necessary to protect farmers' legitimate entitlements, especially in response to PepsiCo suing farmers in Gujarat for intellectual property rights infringement.

However, the court disagreed, noting that Kuruganti failed to prove that these legal actions were aggravating or part of predatory tactics against farmers.

The court found no tangible evidence supporting the allegations and emphasised that the revocation conclusions were not based on the merits underlying the suits filed by PepsiCo.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE