Journal of Intellectual Property Rights

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Pre-Grant Opposition: CSIR v Ms Hindustan Lever Limited


Affiliations
1 CSIR - Innovation Protection Unit, 14, Satsang Vihar Marg - 110 067, New Delhi, India
2 CSIR - Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute, Gijubhai Badheka Marg, Bhavnagar - 364 002, India
 

The article attempts to provide an overview of the pre-grant opposition against a patent application no 1219/DEL/2004 dated 30-06-2004 filed by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). The Pre-Grant Opposition was filed by M/s Hindustan Lever Limited by way of Representation u/s 25 (1) of Indian Patents Act, 1970. This resulted in the application being denied to CSIR, by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design, Indian Patent Office (IPO), New Delhi. Subsequently, CSIR went on to file an appeal against the Order of Assistant Controller of Patents & Design at Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), Chennai which ultimately resulted in the impingement of the decision of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, IPO, New Delhi by the IPAB on 20-06-2013 and a direction to grant the Patent to CSIR was passed by IPAB, Chennai, and accordingly the Patent was granted to CSIR on 27-08-2015. This study provides an overview of the case, including comprehensive information on the Indian patent filing process, examination procedures, pregrant opposition, and strategies to address opposition. Furthermore, it presents a comparative analysis of similar cases, highlighting key legal interpretations, and offers suggestions for enhancing institutional IP due diligence processes and strengthening IP safeguards.

Keywords

Patent Application, Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), Pre-Grant Opposition
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Indian Patent Act 1970, Universal Law publishing Lexis Nexis (2016).

  • Kim I, Hong E, Shin J K & Sun L, Some bad news is good news for foreign investors: The case of Intellectual Property Rights infringement in China, Thunderbird International Business Review - Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 58 (2016) 317-329.

  • Schubert T, Infringement of intellectual property in innovation partnerships, R & D Management, 46 (2015) 596-611.

  • Becker Z, Moderna can't hide behind the government in patent infringement suit, judge rule, https://www.fiercepharma.com/ pharma/moderna-cant-hide-behind-government-patentinfringement- suit-federal-judge-rules, 2022.

  • Singh P & Gargate G, Legal protection, consolidation and evaluation of IP in academic units, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 26 (2021) 69-82.

  • Afaq A & Chhaya R, Securitization of intellectual property: Legal recourse in India, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 27 (2022) 91-99.

  • Jain G C, Patel J M, Desai G T & Bhatt RC B, Process for the manufacture of iodised common salt in solar salt works, Indian Pat No (CSIR, India) IN115120, 27.09.1974.

  • Ghosh P K, Ramchandraiah G, Susarla V R K S, Vaghela S S & Patel S N, A process for the preparation of pure potassium iodate solution from iodine and potassium hydroxide for salt iodization, Indian Pat no, (CSIR, India) IN231850, 12. 03.2009.

  • Jethva A D, A method for the manufacture of alkali iodates form iodides using an ion-exchange membrane flow reactor, Indian Pat No. IN242170 (CSIR, India), 17.08.2010.

  • Bhatt S D, Mehta S H, Trivedi R H, Bhat G D A & Choudhari B P, A process for the preparation of indicator paper for on the spot testing of iodine in the range of 15-42 ppm in iodated salt, Indian Pat No. IN1697472, (CSIR, India), 04.12.1992.

  • Bhatt S D, Mehta S H & Trivedi R H, A process for the preparation of a solid formulation for field testing of iodine in the range of 1-15 ppm present in 50g iodated salt, Indian Pat No IN171018, (CSIR, India), 01.10.1993.

  • Biennial Report of CSIR-CSMCRI 2000-2002, Page No-38.

  • https://www.hul.co.in/brands/nutrition/annapurna/.

  • Somani R S, Oza P M, Gandhi M R & Sheth V M, A process for the manufacture of zeolite-a useful as a detergent builder, Indian Pat No. IN233467 (CSIR, India), 07.03. 1996.

  • Jasra R V, Mody H M, Bajaj H C, Somani R S, Chunawala J R, Ghelani D L, Ranpara H N, Barochiya D J, Suresh C, Dhar MK, Rao C K & Kumar K, A process for the preparation amorphous silica from kimberlite tailing, Indian Pat No. IN246306 (CSIR, India), 24.02.2011.

  • Jasra R V, Mody H M, Bajaj H C, Somani R S, Chunawala J R, Ghelani D L, Ranpara H N, Barochiya D J, Suresh C, Dhar MK, Rao C K & Kumar K, A process for the preparation of zeolite A from kimberlite tailings, Indian Pat No. IN292348 (CSIR, India), 31.01.2018.

  • https://www.csir.res.in/about-us/about-csir, 2022.

  • https://www.hul.co.in/, 2022.

  • Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure, 2011, https://ipindia.gov.in/manual- patents.htm.

  • Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v Hindustan Metal Industries (AIR 1982 SC1444).

  • Novartis AG v Union of India (AIR 2013 SC 1311).

  • Novartis v Cipla in 2011 (593/CHENP/2005).

  • Hindustan Lever Ltd. v Godrej Soaps Ltd. [11 April, 1996, AIR 1996 Cal 367].


Abstract Views: 209

PDF Views: 72




  • Pre-Grant Opposition: CSIR v Ms Hindustan Lever Limited

Abstract Views: 209  |  PDF Views: 72

Authors

Bhanu Verma
CSIR - Innovation Protection Unit, 14, Satsang Vihar Marg - 110 067, New Delhi, India
Shibaji Ghosh
CSIR - Central Salt and Marine Chemicals Research Institute, Gijubhai Badheka Marg, Bhavnagar - 364 002, India

Abstract


The article attempts to provide an overview of the pre-grant opposition against a patent application no 1219/DEL/2004 dated 30-06-2004 filed by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). The Pre-Grant Opposition was filed by M/s Hindustan Lever Limited by way of Representation u/s 25 (1) of Indian Patents Act, 1970. This resulted in the application being denied to CSIR, by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design, Indian Patent Office (IPO), New Delhi. Subsequently, CSIR went on to file an appeal against the Order of Assistant Controller of Patents & Design at Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), Chennai which ultimately resulted in the impingement of the decision of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, IPO, New Delhi by the IPAB on 20-06-2013 and a direction to grant the Patent to CSIR was passed by IPAB, Chennai, and accordingly the Patent was granted to CSIR on 27-08-2015. This study provides an overview of the case, including comprehensive information on the Indian patent filing process, examination procedures, pregrant opposition, and strategies to address opposition. Furthermore, it presents a comparative analysis of similar cases, highlighting key legal interpretations, and offers suggestions for enhancing institutional IP due diligence processes and strengthening IP safeguards.

Keywords


Patent Application, Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), Pre-Grant Opposition

References