Essentially Derived Varieties Under The Act.
Essentially Derived Varieties (EDVs) Under the Plant Variety Protection Act, 2001
Definition and Concept
Under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPVFR) Act, 2001, an Essentially Derived Variety (EDV) refers to:
“A variety which is predominantly derived from an initial (protected) variety, retains the expression of the essential characteristics of the initial variety, and is clearly distinguishable from it.”
Key Points:
The EDV can arise through breeding, selection, mutation, or genetic modification.
Essential traits of the initial variety must be preserved; minor changes do not qualify the new variety as independent.
The breeder of an EDV requires authorization from the breeder of the initial variety for commercial use.
It protects the innovation of the initial breeder while allowing limited innovation for further breeding.
Legal Provisions in the Act
Section 2(1)(ac): Defines “essentially derived variety.”
Section 39(3): Grants the right to the initial breeder to license or control the use of the EDV.
Rule 24: Provides guidelines for testing distinctness, uniformity, and stability (DUS) for EDVs.
Key Case Laws on Essentially Derived Varieties in India
1. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. v. Mahyco Monsanto Biotech Ltd. (Delhi High Court, 2017)
Facts: Nuziveedu Seeds developed a new cotton variety derived from Mahyco-Monsanto’s Bt cotton. Mahyco claimed it was an EDV.
Decision: The court ruled that the new variety retained essential characteristics of the original Bt cotton and was therefore an EDV.
Significance: This case clarified that even if minor traits are altered, the preservation of essential characteristics establishes EDV status.
2. Mahyco v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. (Supreme Court, 2018)
Facts: Appeal against the Delhi High Court’s judgment regarding EDV of Bt cotton.
Decision: Supreme Court reiterated that any variety predominantly derived from a protected variety requires permission from the initial breeder. Unauthorized commercial use constitutes infringement of breeder’s rights.
Significance: Strengthened EDV protection under the PPVFR Act and reinforced breeder’s exclusive rights.
3. Rasi Seeds v. Nuziveedu Seeds (2019, Plant Variety Protection Appellate Tribunal)
Facts: Rasi Seeds claimed that Nuziveedu’s cotton variety was essentially derived from their registered variety.
Decision: PVPT ruled that genetic analysis and DUS test confirmed that the new variety retained core traits, thus qualifying as an EDV.
Significance: Highlighted the role of DUS testing in establishing EDV status.
4. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. v. Rallis India Ltd. (2016, Delhi High Court)
Facts: A hybrid maize variety was produced allegedly derived from an existing registered hybrid.
Decision: Court held that the new variety retained essential traits (like yield and pest resistance) and was essentially derived, protecting the rights of the initial breeder.
Significance: Reinforced that minor modifications like color or size do not make a variety independent if essential characteristics remain.
5. Syngenta Seeds v. Nuziveedu Seeds (PVPT, 2020)
Facts: Syngenta argued that Nuziveedu’s hybrid maize variety was an EDV derived from their registered variety.
Decision: Tribunal analyzed genetic markers and concluded that Nuziveedu’s variety was not sufficiently distinct to avoid EDV classification.
Significance: Demonstrated that molecular/genetic tests are now critical evidence in EDV disputes.
6. Rasi Seeds v. Devi Hybrid Seeds (2021, PVPT)
Facts: Devi Hybrid developed a variety that was similar to Rasi Seeds’ registered cotton.
Decision: PVPT held that essential traits like fiber length and boll size were retained. It declared the variety as an EDV and restrained commercial exploitation without authorization.
Significance: Reinforces that commercial benefit from an EDV without permission is infringement.
Key Takeaways on EDVs in India
EDV vs. Independent Variety: Minor modifications do not make a new variety independent if it retains essential characteristics of the initial variety.
Breeder’s Rights: EDV protection ensures that the original breeder’s investment is safeguarded while allowing controlled further breeding.
DUS and Genetic Testing: Distinctness, Uniformity, Stability (DUS) tests and molecular markers are now standard to determine EDV status.
Commercial Implications: Any unauthorized commercialization of an EDV is a violation of the breeder’s rights under the PPVFR Act.
Promotion of Innovation: EDV framework balances protection of initial innovation and encouragement of further improvements in plant breeding.
Conclusion
The concept of Essentially Derived Varieties under the PPVFR Act, 2001 is crucial for protecting plant breeders’ rights in India. Case laws like Mahyco-Monsanto, Nuziveedu, and Rasi Seeds demonstrate that EDVs are recognized based on essential characteristics, even if minor traits are changed. Courts and tribunals rely on both phenotypic characteristics and genetic testing to determine EDV status, ensuring a fair balance between innovation protection and agricultural development.
RELATED Blog
comments