In the original patent, granted by the USPTO on September 2, 1997, the title of RiceTec's invention was `Basmati Rice Lines and Grains'. Further, the patent abstract read as follows:
``The invention relates to novel rice lines and to plants and grains of these lines and to a method for breeding these lines...Specifically, one aspect of the invention relates to novel rice lines whose plants are semi-dwarf in nature, substantially photoperiod insensitive and high yielding, and produce rice grains having characteristics similar or superior to those of good quality basmati rice. Another aspect of the invention relates to novel rice grains produced from novel rice lines. The invention provides a method for breeding these novel lines...'' 

                 What USPTO examiner has done in its Notice of Intent to Issue Reexamination Certificate, dated August 3, 2001, is to firstly change the title of RiceTec's invention from `Basmati Rice Lines and Grains' to `Rice Lines Bas 867, RT 1117 and RT 1121'. Thus, the term `basmati', with its obvious wideranging implication, has been replaced by a reference to more specific rice line varieties, namely Bas 867, RT 1117 and RT 1121. But more significant is the way in which the patent abstract has been reworded. 

                 The new abstract reads: ``The invention relates to novel rice lines (Bas 867, RT 1117 and RT 1121) and to plants and grains of these lines and to a method for breeding these lines...Specifically, one aspect of the invention relates to (the) novel rice lines whose plants are semi-dwarf in nature, substantially photoperiod insensitive and high yielding, and produce rice grains having characteristics similar or superior to those of good quality basmati rice. Another aspect of the invention relates to novel rice grains produced from (the) novel rice lines. The invention provides a method for breeding these novel lines...'' (parenthesis added). 

                 What emerges, therefore, is that RiceTec's invention no longer relates to basmati rice or novel rice lines in general, but to specific rice lines, namely Bas 867, RT 1117 and RT 1121, that are deemed as being novel and producing grains having characteristics `similar or superior to those of good quality basmati rice'. 

                 In essence, RiceTec's patent now merely concerns the development of specific rice varieties producing grains claimed to be basmati-like, if not of superior quality. This is similar to the Pusa Basmati 1 or Sugandh varieties - and more recently the RH-10 hybrid, bred by the Delhi-based Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI). 

                 Like RiceTec's patented varieties, these, too, are high-yielding, non-lodging, semi-dwarf fine grain aromatic rice with yields four times that of traditionally grown tall basmati cultivars such as Basmati 370, Karnal Local, Taraori, etc. Both RiceTec's patented lines as well as IARI's improved strains claim to combine the essential grain traits of traditional basmati rice (aroma, non-stickiness and elongation upon cooking) with the high yielding attributes of modern semi-dwarf varieties. 

                 What makes RiceTec's lines different, however, is that these are claimed as being suitable for cultivation outside the sub-continent and yet capable of producing grains `similar or superior to those of good quality basmati rice'. In other words, the exclusivity of basmati rice to the unique climatic and soil conditions of the Himalayan foothills stands undermined. 

                 The real point of contention, then, is whether RiceTec has the right to market its rice as basmati, even assuming that the grains do indeed possess all the traits characteristically associated with basmati? As of now, there is nothing that can prevent it from doing so. The only way for the Government to block this possibility is to register `basmati' as a geographical indication, specific to only the varieties (whether traditional or improved) being grown in the sub-continent. 

                 Incidentally, the country already has a Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration of Goods) Act, 1999--the Bill of which was passed by Parliament and notified on December 30. But till date, only a single product -- Darjeeling Tea -- has been registered for protection ``as a produce of a geographical indication of India''.