Patent Insight: Madras High Court Clarifies Section 3(i) in Animal Feed Innovation

The Core Issue: Patenting Animal Treatment vs. Feed Enhancement

A recent judgement (Kemin Industries, INC Vs The Controller of Patents) by the Madras High Court has shed light on the interpretation of Section 3(i) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970, specifically in the context of animal feed. 

The case focuses on an appellant’s patent application (India Application No. 201617013577 titled “USE OF FERULIC ACID ESTERASE TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE IN MONOGASTRIC ANIMALS”) for a method to improve energy extraction from animal feed. This method involved adding a specific enzyme blend to the feed, aiming to reduce the need for other digestive enzymes.

The key legal question was whether this method, which ultimately benefits animals, fell under the exclusion of Section 3(i). Section 3(i) states:

“any process for the medicinal, surgical, curative, prophylactic 2 [diagnostic, therapeutic] or other treatment of human beings or any process for a similar treatment of animals to render them free of disease or to increase their economic value or that of their products”

Court's Ruling: Distinguishing Feed from Animal Treatment

The court clarified that Section 3(i)'s exclusion does not extend to methods that merely supplement animal feed. The court reasoned that:

If a method directly treats an animal (like administering a drug to fatten poultry), it falls under Section 3(i).

However, if the method modifies the feed itself, even if it indirectly benefits the animal, it does not.

In this case, the appellant method worked on the feed, not directly on the animals, enhancing the feed's efficiency, not the animals' physical state. Therefore, it was deemed to be outside the scope of Section 3(i).

The Importance of the Kymab Precedent

The court referenced the Kymab case, which established that, for Section 3(i) to apply, the process must directly treat the animal for the specified purposes. This ruling reinforces that principle.

Key Takeaways

1. Section 3(i) aims to prevent patents from blocking essential animal treatments. However, innovations that improve animal feed, without directly treating the animal, are patentable.

2. This ruling highlights the distinction between treating the animal, and enhancing the feed the animal consumes.