It can be, if the knowledge is of the company's own formulation and procedure rather than of seed treatment generally. The distinguishing evidence is what a competent outside hire would still need to learn.
Ask what the company would have to teach a replacement
Hypothetical example: The regulation asks for special knowledge of the petitioner's product, service, equipment, techniques or procedures, or an advanced level of knowledge of its processes. A chemist who developed the company's own polymer coating chemistry, set its application tolerances and mapped its failure modes across several seasons of field trials holds knowledge that exists nowhere else, because the process itself exists nowhere else. Compare that with a chemist who is expert in seed treatment as a discipline: valuable, but the discipline is taught, published and practised across the industry.
The most persuasive single document is an honest training assessment. Name the specific procedures a replacement would have to learn, estimate the weeks required for each and identify who inside the company could teach them. If the honest answer is a short handover, L-1B is the wrong route and the transfer should be reconsidered rather than rewritten.