It is often observed in client meetings that the same two questions recur. Can a secret masala be patented, and will a novel cooking method be protected in India. The expectation is understandable since packaged food and cloud kitchens now scale at speed. The law, however, separates product recipes from process innovations, demands proof of “synergy” for mixtures, and screens out traditional knowledge. The path to protection exists, but it is narrow and evidence driven.
Patentability basics for food inventions in India
A patent may be granted for a new product or process that involves an inventive step and is capable of industrial application. Section 2(1)(j) defines “invention” and Section 2(1)(ac) defines industrial applicability. For food, industrial application normally poses no difficulty if the invention can be made at scale. The real questions are novelty, inventive step and statutory exclusions.
The Supreme Court’s classic guidance on obviousness in Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v Hindustan Metal Industries (1978) remains the anchor. The Court cautioned against patents on “mere workshop improvements”, which is often the stumbling block for routine recipe tweaks. The decision is frequently cited by patent offices and courts to test whether a claimed advance would have been obvious to a skilled person.
The key hurdle for recipes, Section 3(e), and the “synergy” test
Section 3(e) excludes “a substance obtained by a mere admixture resulting only in the aggregation of the properties of the components thereof, or a process for producing such substance”. In plain terms, a list of known ingredients mixed together will not do, unless the combination produces more than the sum of its parts. The Patent Office Manual requires that this synergistic effect be clearly brought out, ideally with comparative data, in the specification itself.
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Best Agrolife Ltd v Deputy Controller of Patents (2022) clarifies the legal test. The Court drew a clean line between Section 3(e) synergy and Section 3(d) therapeutic efficacy, holding that each must be assessed on its own terms. For combination claims, the question under Section 3(e) is whether the claimed mix shows a combinatorial or reciprocal functional effect, not just additive results. This is directly relevant to food compositions, where applicants must plan, generate and file synergy data early.
A useful practice pointer emerges from this jurisprudence and the Manual. If your claimed chutney powder, protein bar or beverage premix has components known in the art, build your Section 3(e) case with head-to-head data. Show, for example, unexpected shelf-life stability, emulsification behaviour, moisture barrier performance, or nutritional bio-availability that the ingredients do not exhibit individually. The synergy must be technological, not a matter of taste or preference.
Traditional recipes and Section 3(p)
Section 3(p) bars patents for inventions that, in effect, are traditional knowledge, or simply duplicate known properties of traditionally known components. India operationalises this bar through the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL), which examiners use to locate prior art in codified sources. Government updates confirm that TKDL evidence has led to refusals or withdrawals in many cases, and access has been widened for defensive protection. If your recipe draws from Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani or widely practised culinary traditions, expect Section 3(p) scrutiny.
A practical implication follows. If your innovation starts from a traditional preparation, frame claims on the non-traditional technical advance, for example a novel fermentation control, a new stabilising micro-structure, or an industrial process that delivers a quantifiable improvement. Bench comments in recent analyses stress that drawing inspiration from tradition is not fatal if the claimed invention cannot be described, “in effect”, as traditional knowledge.
Product vs process: why culinary process claims often fare better
Two claim pathways are typical in food filings:
Composition claims on the ingredient blend. These frequently attract Section 3(e) objections, hence the criticality of synergy data.
Process claims on the way the food is prepared, for instance controlled hydration, staged heating, pressure or vacuum profiles, or aeration steps that create a distinct micro-structure. Indian practice and commentary note that process claims generally see higher acceptance if the steps are new and non-obvious, and deliver a verifiable technical effect.
Applicants sometimes ask whether a “healthy diet method” or a “method of treating condition X through a food regimen” can be claimed. Section 3(i) excludes methods of treatment of humans or animals. The safer approach is to claim the food product or the industrial process that yields it, without claiming treatment steps. Recent case notes reiterate that composition claims are not hit by Section 3(i) merely because the specification discusses use, provided the claim is to a product, not a treatment method.
Drafting and evidence strategy that actually works
Use this checklist when building a food recipe or culinary technique patent:
State the problem technically. Is the advance in shelf-life, texture stability under freeze-thaw, oil uptake reduction, glycaemic index, or manufacturing throughput. Tie it to Section 2(1)(ja): technical advance or economic significance, and non-obviousness.
Generate synergy data for mixtures. File quantitative comparisons against each key prior art combination. The Manual expects synergy to be shown at filing, not saved for later.
Claim the process where possible. Identify parameters, ranges and control logic that are not routine, and explain how they create a distinctive structure or performance outcome. Practice experience in India supports higher success for process claims in food inventions.
Disclose the best method. Section 10 requires full, enabling disclosure and the best mode known to you. If a trade secret step is held back, enforceability suffers and refusal or revocation risks increase. For many kitchen-scale secrets, trade secret may be better than a patent.
Screen for Section 3(p) with a TKDL-style search. If a traditional base is involved, draft claims to the non-traditional technical contribution and retain evidence that distinguishes the invention from codified knowledge.
FAQs, answered in context
Is “taste” protectable by patent law?
No. Patent protection in India is about technical contributions, not taste or flavour as such. Protection arises when a product or process meets the Section 2(1)(j) test and avoids Section 3 bars, notably 3(e) and 3(p). The specification must teach the invention so a skilled person can practice it.If my recipe is secret, should I patent it or keep it confidential?
If the value lies in a step you cannot disclose, Section 10’s best-method requirement becomes a problem. In such cases, a trade secret may be the more suitable route. If you do file, ensure the complete specification is enabling and includes the best mode known, or the patent risks refusal or later attack.Can I stop a competitor who reverse engineers my process from the finished food?
Enforcement of process patents can be challenging. Section 104A allows courts, in defined circumstances, to shift the burden to the defendant to show a different process if you first show that the defendant’s product is identical to the product directly obtained by your patented process. Plan early for sampling and analytical proof.Does the Novartis decision affect food patents?
Novartis v Union of India (2013, SC) is a pharmaceutical case on Section 3(d) enhanced therapeutic efficacy, and it is often cited to emphasise that 3(d) and 3(e) are different tests. For food, the typical barrier is 3(e) synergy, not 3(d). Courts have warned against mixing up these provisions, as clarified in Best Agrolife.Putting it together, with India-specific takeaways
Patentable in principle: culinary processes that deliver a technical effect, and compositions that demonstrate synergy beyond aggregation.
Common refusal grounds: Section 3(e) mere admixture without synergy, Section 3(p) traditional knowledge, and lack of inventive step under the Bishwanath test.
Draft for success: lead with the technical problem and effect, include data in the specification, and keep claims focused on measurable features. Use dependent claims to capture industrial parameters that deliver the advantage.
Enforce thoughtfully: if you choose a process route, budget for evidence to trigger Section 104A, and consider parallel brand, packaging and design protection to strengthen market position.
The bottom line is clear. In India, recipes are not excluded per se, but most will fail if they are framed as a mere list of ingredients or as a re-packaged traditional dish. Success lies in telling a technical story that the law recognises, supported by synergy data where a mixture is claimed, and by clear, enabling disclosure of the best method. When that groundwork is done, culinary innovations can secure meaningful patent protection and enforceable market advantage.
