Hindustan lever vs eureka forbes (aquasure case)

CHENNAI3rd Floor, ‘Creative Enclave’,

148-150, Luz Church Road,Mylapore,

Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821

BANGALORE Suite 920, Level 9,

Raheja Towers,26-27, M G Road,

Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400

COIMBATOREBB1, Park Avenue,

# 48, Race Course Road,Coimbatore - 641018.

Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921

[email protected]

WEBSITEwww.altacit.com

Hindustan UniLever Vs Eureka Forbes (Aquasure Case)

N.Vignesh Kumaran B.E.Patents & Designs Department, Altacit Global



Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821



Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400



Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921

[email protected]


WHAT IS A PATENT?

A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product

or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or

offers a new technical solution to a problem. To get a patent, technical

information about the invention must be disclosed to the public in a patent

application.

Among various requirements of patentability, novelty and non-

obviousness/inventive step requirements are judged based on prior art. A

claim of a patent application is considered to be novel if the claim is not

anticipated by a prior art reference.



Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821



Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400



Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921

[email protected]


An Indian giant company indulged in water purification system and sole

manufacturer "Eureka Forbes" filed a patent application at the Chennai

Patent office. The filed Patent application no:1008/CHE/2006 having the tile

"AQUASURE IRON REMOVER PRODUCT” on October 27, 2006

INTRODUCTION



Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821



Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400



Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921

[email protected]


• Pre-grant opposition can be made on the grounds listed under section

25(1)(a) to (k) of the Patent Amendment Act, 2005:

• Wrongfully obtaining the invention

• anticipation by prior publication

• anticipation by prior date, Prior claiming in India

• Prior public knowledge or public use in India

• Obviousness and lack of inventive step

• non patentable subject matter

• insufficiency of description of the invention

• non-disclosure of information as per the requirement or providing

materially false information by an applicant

PRE-GRANT OPPOSITION



Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821



Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400



Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921

[email protected]


• Indian MNC Hindustan Unilever Ltd filed pre-grant opposition

against the patent application stating that "the usage of ion exchange

resin for the removal of iron as well as its usage in gravity water

filters on the ground for lacking substantive amount of innovation,

inventive step and inadequate discloser concerning the invention

applied for. Eureka Forbes replied stating that

CASE HISTORY



Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821



Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400



Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921

[email protected]


• Opposing the patent, Hindustan Unilever contended that ‘the usage of

ion exchange resin for the removal of iron as well its usage in gravity

water filters is well known in prior arts’, and it even argued that the

patentee also failed to provide comparative test with respect to the

closest prior art as well as the data in relation to its distinguishing

feature along with details of the novel result accomplished from the

alleged claimed invention. The impugned patent application failed to

satisfy the basic patentability criteria of obviousness and inventive step

as requisite by any invention to be patented.

CONT…



Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821



Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400



Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921

[email protected]


CONTROLLER’S DECISION

• M Ajith, assistant controller of patents and designs, Chennai, said: “I find

force in the arguments put forward by the opponent (HUL) that with the

teachings disclosed in the cited documents, it is obvious for a person

skilled to arrive at the invention claimed in the present application, and in

view of this, came to a conclusion that the opponent has succeeded in

establishing this ground of lacking inventive step and this application for

a patent is liable to be refused on this ground alone.”

• HUL further argued that Eureka Forbes has acknowledged that the

inventive merit of the claimed invention lies in the usage of iron removal

cartridge.



Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821



Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400



Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921

[email protected]


CONT…

• It was therefore submitted that the scope of the alleged invention cannot

be extended to claim a water purification device, especially when the

water purification device per se has been claimed in the application.

• The patent office refused to entertain the application of the patentee after

considering the pre-grant opposition filled by one of the biggest

competitor of the patentee, Hindustan Unilever (HUL) hearing their

submissions as endeavoured.



Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821



Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400



Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921

[email protected]


Prosecuting patent applications requires thorough understanding of the

grounds that can be used by patent examiners for rejecting claims and

recourse patent applicants can take to deal with such rejections.



Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821



Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400



Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921

[email protected]


Hindustan lever vs eureka forbes (aquasure case)

Law

Transcript of Hindustan lever vs eureka forbes (aquasure case)