The Patent law in India provides for
a process of a pre-grant opposition, whereby opponents may pose
their standing against the grant of the patent. The Forum for the
same being the Patent Office itself, the contentions made there
under find a place under the microscopic eye of examiners and
controllers who apply a confluence of technical and substantive
assertions to arrive at a decision. An elucidation of this was
viewed in Societe Des Products Nestle S.A. v. Council for
Scientific and Industrial Research [2008(37) PTC 555(
Nestle, applicants for a patent
titled "A process for the Preparation of a Foodstuff with a
good cooked flavour by extrusion and an installation for carrying
out the Process", obtained a First Examination Report, as
under S. 12 of the Patents Act, 1970 to be replied to within
fifteen months from the date of forwarding the examination report.
The application was responded to, and subsequently examination
reports to the effect had been issued. After overcoming the formal
and technical objections, the application was accepted by the
Controller and the notice of acceptance to the same was published
in the gazette.
The application being initiated in
1997, having undergone publication in 2000, and a pre-grant
opposition being faced with that very year the official at the
Patents and Designs Office clarified that the provisions governing
pre-grant opposition, as under the amended Act in 1999, would
apply. The application was opposed to by the Council of Scientific
and Industrial Research (CSIR), who sought an extension of one
month as allowable under the provisions of Section 25 of the Act
governing the pre-grant opposition. While the Controller condoned
the delay, Nestle challenged the granted extension of time. The
formalities with respect to filling of evidence and other
procedures were completed and a date for hearing was fixed. CSIR
was unrepresented and the hearing was conducted in the presence of
Nestle' representative stated
that while the process of extrusion was well known, but the same
was not being claimed. They stated that what was being claimed
related to two sets of extrusion, which were not simultaneous but
in series, which differentiated it from the citation made in the
opposition. Further he stated that what was claimed was the
three-step process, which helped maintain or enhance the flavour
and that the same was not enunciated in any of CSIR' citations.
Nestle referring to various precedents and authorities on Food
Processing Technologies, stated that the problem of maintaining
flavour while extruding food products had never been successfully
solved before. It was also stated that the absence of the opponents
reflected that they had either realized that they could not defend
their case or that they possessed no interest in pursuing the
Referring to the averment made in
written by CSIR regarding the twin screw extruders, the Assistant
Controller noted that Nestle' specification admitted to the
same , while further averring that the documents cited by CSIR did
not anticipate or disclose the invention under speculation.
Elucidating the specific features of the patent, Nestle requested
for the opposition petition to be dismissed. The Assistant
Controller took into consideration the averments made in the
affidavits filed as evidence and opined that although CSIR was
right in as much as the extruding process was a known one on the
date of filling the application, but that there existed no
substantial evidence as to how flavour was retained. However, he
stated that with regard to the dynamic separation device, CSIR had
failed to show any evidence and that they failed to prove the lack
of novelty. He also stated that the benefit of doubt in respect of
"preparation of good food" was in favour of Nestle and
ruled the invention to be novel, inventive and industrially
applicable, especially since the introduction of the cooker in
series, between the two extruders and the dynamic separation device
could not be inferred from the prior art.
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recently issued an office memorandum pursuant to receiving representations from various stakeholders for guidance with respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
An Invention Disclosure Form is the documentation of the invention. This is a means to document particulars of your invention and submitting it to the patent attorney who is filing your patent application.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).