Daily Current Affairs : 11-January-2024

The Delhi High Court recently rendered a decision in favor of PepsiCo, allowing the company to retain a patent for a specific potato variety used in its popular potato chips. This ruling came in response to Pepsi’s appeal under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (the Act).

Background:

PepsiCo had filed an appeal challenging the order of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Authority (the Authority), which had initially revoked Pepsi’s patent-protected potato variety, FL 2027, utilized in chip production.

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001:

The PPVFR Act, enacted by the Parliament of India, serves several key objectives:

  1. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights:
    • Establishing a comprehensive system to safeguard plant varieties and the rights of both farmers and plant breeders.
    • Ensuring a balanced framework that recognizes the contributions of farmers in conserving, enhancing, and providing access to plant genetic resources.
  2. Recognition of Farmers’ Rights:
    • Acknowledging and protecting the rights of farmers for their pivotal role in preserving, improving, and disseminating plant genetic resources.
    • Fostering an environment that values and upholds the crucial contributions of farmers to agricultural biodiversity.
  3. Safeguarding Public Interest:
    • Prioritizing the broader public interest by safeguarding the rights of researchers.
    • Balancing the rights of different stakeholders to create a harmonious system that promotes innovation, conservation, and accessibility to plant genetic resources.
Important Points:
  • Delhi High Court Decision:
    • Ruled in favor of PepsiCo.
    • Allows the company to claim a patent for the potato variety used in its potato chips.
  • Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (PPVFR Act):
    • Enacted by the Parliament of India.
    • Key Objectives:
      • Establish a system for protecting plant varieties and the rights of farmers and plant breeders.
      • Recognize and protect farmers’ rights for their contributions to conserving, improving, and making available plant genetic resources.
      • Safeguard researchers’ rights and the larger public interest.
  • PepsiCo’s Appeal:
    • Filed under the PPVFR Act.
    • Challenged the order of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Authority.
  • Potato Variety FL 2027:
    • Subject to the patent dispute.
    • Initially had its patent revoked by the Authority.
  • Objective of PPVFR Act (Detailed):
    • Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights:
      • Establish a comprehensive system for safeguarding plant varieties and the rights of farmers and plant breeders.
      • Recognize and balance the contributions of farmers in conserving, enhancing, and providing access to plant genetic resources.
    • Recognition of Farmers’ Rights:
      • Acknowledge and protect the rights of farmers for their role in preserving, improving, and disseminating plant genetic resources.
      • Value and uphold the crucial contributions of farmers to agricultural biodiversity.
    • Safeguarding Public Interest:
      • Prioritize the broader public interest by safeguarding the rights of researchers.
      • Balance the rights of different stakeholders to create a harmonious system that promotes innovation, conservation, and accessibility to plant genetic resources.
Why In News

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of PepsiCo, allowing the company to claim a patent for the potato variety used in its potato chips, emphasizing the significance of intellectual property rights in fostering innovation and protecting corporate investments.

MCQs about PPVFR Act

  1. What was the recent decision by the Delhi High Court regarding PepsiCo’s potato chip patent?
    A. Revoked the patent
    B. Upheld the patent
    C. Modified the patent
    D. Deferred the decision
    Correct Answer: B. Upheld the patent
    Explanation: The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of PepsiCo, upholding the company’s patent for the potato variety used in its potato chips.
  2. Which act was invoked by PepsiCo in its appeal before the Delhi High Court?
    A. Copyright Act
    B. Companies Act
    C. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001
    D. Environmental Protection Act
    Correct Answer: C. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001
    Explanation: PepsiCo filed an appeal under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (PPVFR Act).
  3. What was the potato variety at the center of the patent dispute?
    A. FL 2027
    B. Russet Burbank
    C. Yukon Gold
    D. Red Bliss
    Correct Answer: A. FL 2027
    Explanation: The potato variety involved in the patent dispute was FL 2027.
  4. According to the PPVFR Act, what is one of the key objectives related to farmers’ rights?
    A. Protecting corporate interests
    B. Recognizing and protecting farmers’ rights for their contributions
    C. Limiting access to plant genetic resources
    D. Prioritizing researchers’ rights over farmers’
    Correct Answer: B. Recognizing and protecting farmers’ rights for their contributions
    Explanation: One of the key objectives of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, is to recognize and protect farmers’ rights for their contributions to conserving, improving, and making available plant genetic resources.

Boost up your confidence by appearing our Weekly Current Affairs Multiple Choice Questions

Loading