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