IPAB sets aside Patent Office's order in an appeal of HUL

The case relates to a water purification system that is being opposed by Eureka Forbes

The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has set aside an order of the Patent Office, which revoked a patent granted to Hindustan Unilever Ltd related to a water purification system following an opposition raised by Eureka Forbes Limited.

The appeal was filed by HUL against an order of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs dated March 14, 2012, revoking the patent number 198316 granted to its application titled "a gravity fed water purification system". Eureka Forbes, a rival firm, had filed an opposition against the patent.

S Majumdar, counsel appeared for Hindustan Unilever contended that while the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs has received the recommendations of Board of Examination, he has not furnished those recommendations or objections either to Hindustan Unilever Ltd or to Eureka Forbes. He argued that thus, the company has been prevented from replying to the objections or giving explanations and the order under challenge was passed mechanically violating the principles of natural justice.

The counsel for the opposite party, while commenting that the patent official referred about the receipt of the recommendations of the Board of examination and even the Member of the Board was also present, farily admitted that the recommendations or objections raised by the Opposition Board were not furnished to either of the parties.

After hearing all the sides, IPAB's bench comprising Chairman Justice K N Basha and Technical Member (Patent) DPS Parmar, stated that the "undisputed fact remains that the Assitant Controller of Patents & Designs has received the recommendations and objections of the Board of Examination and unfortunatley the said recommendations and objections were furnished neither to the appellant (HUL) nor to the respondent (Eureka Forbes)".

Observing that it is incumbent on the part of the Controller to constitute an Oppoition Board as per provisions under the Patents Act, 1970 and provide an opportunity for being heard to the patentee and as well as to the opponent on receipt of the recommendation of the Opposition Board.

The IPAB also observed that the provisions makes it crystal clear that the Controller has not only authorise to constiute an Opposition Board but also duty bound to offer opportunity of being heard to the patentee and to the appellant on receipt of the recommendation of the Opposition Board.

"We have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order was passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice," said the IPAB order.

The Bench, observing that the order of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, has set-aside the order and directed the Controller to consider the matter afresh by affording opportunity to both sides by furnishing copies of Opposition Board Report and affording further opportunity to give their explanation and reply and their submissions and pass order on merits in accordance with law.

"It is made very clear that the above said exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order copy of this Bench," according to the Order passed by Justice K N Basha, chairman and D P S Parmar, technical member (patents).