Saturday, June 30, 2012

Eureka Forbes v. HUL: IPAB Revokes HUL’s Water-Purifier Patent with Costs

In a decision delivered on June 12, 2012, the Mumbai Bench of the IPAB has revoked Hindustan Unilever’s (HUL) patent 195937 titled “Filter Device” in a revocation petition filed by Tata Chemicals. The IPAb further imposed costs of INR 5000 on HUL. We will carry a detailed analysis shortly. Last December, I had blogged on a related suit before the High Court of Delhi, although I am not sure if the patent in the suit is the same as the one revoked by the IPAB. 

The IPAB has revoked HUL’s patent on grounds of lack of novelty, obviousness and suppression of information under Section 8 of the Patents Act. If news reports are to be believed, HUL may prefer an “appeal” before the Bombay High Court. In two earlier posts, I had expressed by views on why there can be no “appeals” to a High Court from a decision of the IPAB. Therefore, I am not sure if HUL can prefer an “appeal”; it can at best file a writ petition.

No comments:

Post a Comment