Latest Stories

How “swach” is the “Pure it! water purifier” patent? : Tata Chemicals Limited v. Hindustan Unilever Limited & Another.

Posted by Mad for IP, Made for IP - 5 comments

Hi IP MADs,

Background: What is driving Indian water purifier segment?
In the past few years, Indian water purifier industry has witnessed an exponential growth of more than 22% CAGR. According to TechSci Research, the water purifier industry sales grew dramatically during FY’10 as compared to previous fiscals due to improving demand and expanding production capacity. In 2011, the organized water purifier market stood at Rs 1500 Crore. Given the increasing awareness, and largely untapped market potential, the sector is expected to grow at a CAGR of more than 20 percent till 2016. As per India Water Review, water purifier segment is growing at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of about 25 per cent and is likely to touch Rs 7,000 crore by 2015 from the current level of about Rs 3,200 crore as of June 2, 2012.
HUL launched its Pureit water purifier range in India in 2008 with patent protection or market exclusivity for its gravity-fed filtration technology. The water purifier currently sells around six million units per annum, contributing about Rs. 200-250 crore to its annual revenue.
‘Tata Swach’- World’s most cost-effective water purifier improves affordability of safe drinking water for millions of families. It is innovative nanotechnology water purifier made from rick husk ash which does not require electricity or running water to operate. The product development has resulted in 14 patents being filed by the company.

Glimpse of the case: Tata Chemicals Limited v. Hindustan Unilever Limited & Another.
India’s apex Intellectual Property tribunal i.e. Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) on 12th June, 2012 has ruled that the patent issued to Hindustan Unilever Ltd’s (HUL) in 2005 has been revoked with cost of Rs.5000/-,marking a landmark victory for the Tata group in a high profile intellectual property battle.
The Applicant, Tata Chemicals Limited sought revocation of the invention of Patent No.195937 (Application No. 709/MUM/2002) titled “Filter Device” filed on August 7, 2002 and granted on August 26, 2005 to Hindustan Unilever Limited. The Invention relates to a filter cartridge for use in gravity-fed filtration “in particular to a novel filter cartridge which would facilitate gravity flow filtration at constant flow rate even with increased literage of water through the cartridge maintaining effective filtration characteristics”.

Interesting because of the grounds on which HUL’s patent has been revoked!!
The IPAB order in this high-profile intellectual property dispute is significant because it is the first such decision in which suppression of details and submission of incorrect filings attracting the provisions of Section 8 of the Indian Patent Act, 1970 were the basis for the cancellation of a patent. In support of the grounds relied by the Applicant attacking the patent as being anticipated, and obvious and insufficiently described and so on, they relied upon the following patent documents. In addition both the parties have relied upon plethora of foreign case laws.

No.
Used to Prove
Document Number
Filing Date
Title
1
Prior art-Hindustan Unilever
US 5273650
December 17, 1992
Ceramic filter
2
Prior art-Hindustan Unilever
US 5562824
October 12, 1994
Gravity water purifier
3
Prior art-Indian Patent Office
EP1106578
December 2, 2000
Water filtration apparatus
4
Invention lacks novelty and inventive step
EP1106579
December 2, 2001
Water filtration apparatus
5
Invention lacks novelty and inventive step
US 6387260
August 20, 1998
Filtration Device for Liquid Purification
6
Obviousness
US 3909402
April 13, 1972
Water Purification Device
7
Lacking inventive step
US 4139473
February 13, 1979
Filter

The table below will show how the Invention is fully taught by US‘260.   The terminology is different, but the hollow passage is there, the upward flow of fluid through the filter media is there and how they are constructed is the same. 

 Many arguments were made from both the sides alleging requirements of Section 8 of the Indian Patent Act, 1970. It is interesting to note that the IPER (International Preliminary Examination Report) rejected the claims 1 to 3 on both the grounds of novelty and inventive step. The Patent Office did not see the IPER as it was not submitted. In paragraph 107 of the order it was laid down that, “The Act requires compliance with Section 8(1) and 8(2) and the patent applicant must comply with the same.  Otherwise the patent is liable to be revoked.”

One of the most conspicuous part of the pronounced order is in paragraph 110 which highlights “essence of expert evidence and its role in development of IP jurisprudence” as hereunder:
We find as a rule the experts called upon by the parties before us file affidavits.  These affidavits are naturally drafted by the respective advocates.  So they read almost like the statement of case or counter statement depending on who has called the witness.  Instead it may be better to just get their opinion in the form of an affidavit.  This opinion will deal with the prior art, the common general knowledge, this invention and why the expert is of the opinion that it is anticipated or not, it is obvious or not.  Even when the affidavit has to counter the opinion of the other side expert, it is better merely to say that the expert disagrees with the opinion and for what reason.  Instead the affidavits contain attacks on the expertise of the experts.  This must be eschewed.  Each expert gives his opinion and the reasons therefore and the Court / Board will apply its mind and decide how relevant the evidence is for proving the case.  The experts are respected academicians in their fields and such attacks may discourage the best minds from offering to assist us. It will be then a loss to the development of IP jurisprudence. The expert evidence is one of the relevant facts which the court has to consider and while deciding the patentability of some inventions, this may be very crucial.  We hope the members of the Bar will bear this in mind, when they request experts to assist us.  Whether they appear in the witness box or file affidavits in lieu thereof, the witnesses deserve our respect.
The whole order is worth reading!!!

For more information please follow "Mad 4 IP"

     

Read More ...

Latest Stories

An intellectual property driven effort to pay tribute to World No Tobacco Day: Filing of Patent Application for Soft Padded Electronic Cigarette Cartridge by Vapor Corp.

Posted by Mad for IP, Made for IP - 0 comments

Hi IP MADs,
The tobacco epidemic is one of the biggest public health threats the world has ever faced. Present and future generations must be urgently protected from the devastating health, social, environmental and economic consequences of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke. The costs of tobacco use are measured in its enormous toll of disease, suffering and family distress. Economies also suffer from increased health-care costs and decreased productivity.


Tobacco Key facts

Ø  Tobacco kills up to half of its users.
Ø  Tobacco kills nearly six million people each year, of which more than 5 million are users and ex users and more than 600000 are nonsmokers exposed to second-hand smoke. Unless urgent action is taken, the annual death toll could rise to more than eight million by 2030.
Ø  Nearly 80% of the world's one billion smokers live in low- and middle-income countries.
Ø  Consumption of tobacco products is increasing globally, though it is decreasing in some high-income and upper middle-income countries.

WHO is committed to fight the global tobacco epidemic. The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control entered into force in February 2005. Since then, it has become one of the most widely embraced treaties in the history of the United Nations with more than 170 Parties covering 87% of the world's population. Tobacco industry interference is the theme of this year’s World No Tobacco Day, which takes place on 31 May 2012.The campaign will focus on the need to expose and counter the tobacco industry's brazen and increasingly aggressive attempts to undermine global tobacco control efforts.
Vapor Corporation, a leading U.S. based electronic cigarette company, announced that on June 5, 2012, it has filed a non-provisional patent for a "Padded Cartridge For An Electronic Cigarette Apparatus" based on Vapor's previously filed provisional patent application, as filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on June 7, 2011. Vapor Corp.'s Soft Padded Electronic Cigarette Cartridge is a soft tip filter with the same tactile feel of a traditional cigarette filter.
"We believe the soft padded electronic cartridge is the most significant innovation to e-cigarettes, since their invention and introduction to the US marketplace," said Kevin Frija, CEO of Vapor. "We constantly strive to enhance the experience and comfort for those who use and enjoy our products.  The comfort of the new soft tip filter will offer our customers the most realistic and similar experience akin to the filters of traditional cigarettes. We are truly excited to offer this unique remarkable advancement to our customers, and we plan to launch electronic cigarettes with these soft tip filters by year end to our on-line customers, and then roll out the product offerings brand by brand and company-wide in 2013."
It is happy to know that such intellectual property driven efforts are doing the needful to combat with the evil of tobacco epidemic. Another point I would like to mention is that patent offices should go for fast track prosecution of inventions for which society is craving, isn’t it?

References:
  1. Image source: http://www.who.int/tobacco/wntd/2012/en/index.html
  2. http://www.who.int/tobacco/control/en/
  3.  http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/index.html
  4.  http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/index.html
  5.  http://www.who.int/tobacco/economics/en/
  6.      http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/vapor-corp-filed-patent-application-for-soft-padded-electronic-cigarette-cartridge-157786775.html
  7. Vapor Corp. website: http://www.vapor-corp.com/index.php

For more information please follow "Mad 4 IP"

    
Read More ...