)
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) today set aside orders against Colgate-Palmolive and Ericsson in their respective patent cases.
IPAB asked the Assistant Controller of Patents and Design, which had earlier rejected the patent applications of the two companies, to hear the cases again.
The Assistant Controller had rejected Colgate-Palmolive's patent application after it was opposed by Hindustan Unilever (HUL), saying that the application lacked invention. Colgate-Palmolive had then filed an appeal against the order.
In 2007, Colgate-Palmolive had filed an application with 40 claims. Post the first examination report by the controller, few of the claims were modified. In 2009, however, the controller had rejected the company's patent application.
The IPAB ruled that the controller had failed to state why the invention was not patentable in its order. It further sent back the matter to the controller, asking it to decide on the matter within six months.
In the Ericsson case, IPAB directed the controller to “afford proper opportunity” to the company.
In 2004, Ericsson had filed an international patent application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty and then the Indian National Phase application with the Indian Patent Office in 2005. Several rounds of discussions were held between the company and the examiner, but the controller had ruled that the application filed didnot constitute an invention.
“We think it fit to remand the matter back to the Controller for deciding the matter afresh in accordance of law,” IPAB said.
