RiceTec was challenged by Indian rice exporters. This is the third decision on patents involving India. First a patent on turmeric taken by an American company was defeated. Then came a long-drawn battle on neem which was decided in the European patent office.

The government, however, seems to have learned little from this experience. A comprehensive law on biodiversity is yet to be passed. Similarly a law on trademarks and geographical indicators languishes somewhere in government.

In the basmati case, attorneys Kumaran and Sagar and their US associate, Merchants and Gould, had contended in their suit that the ``rice lines and grains'' that RiceTec had claimed as its own, had grown on the sub-continent for centuries.

RiceTec gave up its claims, just as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) begun circulating the draft of a brand new Patent Law Treaty, which if accepted by member countries, will not allow a patent to be revoked once it is granted.

In 20 trademark cases being fought by Agricultural and Processed Food Export development Authority (APEDA) around the world, ``Basmati'' is a brand for agro-produce ranging from rice to cocoa. Rice exporters, who funded the battle against the patent, feel that the war has just begun.

Signs of revelry were missing at both the offices of APEDA that filed the re-examination suit against the RiceTec patent, and its attorneys. The response to RiceTec withdrawing four claims to its patent is still cautious, primarily because the United States Patents and Trademarks Office (USTPO) is yet to issue a formal order.

Yet, from a strictly legal point of view the case is over. RiceTec has conceded on its own that it could not claim the parameters of the fine-grained rice as an invention. The peddlers of the ``Texmati'' and ``Jasmati'' brands of rice have also withdrawn a claim pertaining to the chalkiness of the rice, which takes out four claims out of 20 for the patent. Exporters do have reason to rejoice.

The RiceTec brands (of a rice similar to the Basmati, but grown in Texas) had sent shock waves through Indian trade circles when they first appeared in US stores and English restaurants five years ago. Attorneys Kumaran & Sagar point out that the RiceTec patent could have hurt ``commercial interest.''

The branded Basmati (like ``Lalquila'' and ``Kohinoor'') still make up only a small portion of the close to six million tonnes of exports every year. Most of the aromatic rice is shipped out in bulk to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other parts of West Asia. Restaurants serving Indian food in Europe import some, but not enough to make an impact on the Basmati trade balance. The European Union as a whole imports only 1.4 lakh tonne of Basmati.

Even so, a grain with claims to be as fine or better than Basmati was a commercial threat to Indian exports. Rice exporters have obviously been able to spin a googley before they could be hit. Yet, claiming Basmati as part of the Himalayan heritage (the rice grows in identical agro-climatic conditions in both India and Pakistan) is going to be a more long drawn-out battle.

Basmati will only become the exclusive preserve of the Indo-Gangetic plains when the geographical indication of the grain has been established. Rice exporters now want the geographical indication of the Basmati rice delineated.

The Indian government backs the claim. Basmati should belong to the Indo-Gangetic plain as much as Champagne belongs to France, Columbian coffee to Columbia, Scotch whiskey to Scotland and Swiss chocolates to Switzerland. The geographical indication of the Basmati is a far cry, as long as cereals and beans branded ``Basmati'' sell in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Spain, Denmark and Great Britain.

The patent for a rice line similar to Basmati may have been stymied, but trademarks still sully the fair name of the Indo-Gangetic grain. The first task before APEDA is to fight the trademarks, so that ``Basmati'' remains the nomenclature for fine-grained aromatic Indian rice and nothing else. Exporters have been fighting these trademarks through APEDA for almost five years now.

A fund was created out of contributions of Basmati exporters specifically to fight patents and ``Basmati'' trademarks. APEDA has now appointed a ``watchdog agency'' to sniff out imposters parading around as ``Basmati'' and have identified transgressors like wheat, cocoa and other varieties of rice.

RiceTec's to withdraw its claims is a step forward. But much more ground needs to be covered. There are many more legal battles ahead and they promise to be long and complex.