“Indian Patent Office Grants Patent for Popcorn Box Invention Amidst Opposition from Agro Tech Foods”

Indian Patent Office Grants Patent to Francois Berthault for Popcorn Box Invention

In a significant development, the Indian Patent Office (IPO) has granted a patent to Francois Berthault for his unique popcorn box invention. The patent was granted despite a pre-grant opposition filed by Agro Tech Foods, a leading food processing company. The decision came after a heavily contested matter, with Agro Tech challenging the patentability of Berthault’s invention on several grounds, including prior publication, prior use, obviousness, and insufficiency under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act.

Details of the Invention

Berthault’s invention is a unique popcorn box with a hooking system for closure. The system comprises a tab connected to the free edge of a flap and a cut made in another flap, into which the tab can be inserted. Agro Tech, in its opposition, relied on 11 citations to challenge the novelty and inventiveness of Berthault’s invention. They argued that a combined reading of these documents would teach a person skilled in the art how to make the claimed packaging device.

Legal Proceedings

During the pre-grant hearing, both parties presented detailed arguments. The IPO then appointed another hearing under Section 14 of the Patents Act, attended by both parties’ attorneys. Berthault contested Agro Tech’s presence during this hearing, arguing that the Section 14 provision only authorised the applicant to be part of the proceedings. Agro Tech disagreed, citing a single-bench judgment by the Delhi High Court in Natco Pharma v Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, which held that both parties should be involved in the proceedings at every stage.

However, Berthault pointed out that this decision was under appeal before a Delhi High Court division bench. Consequently, the IPO allowed Agro Tech to be a part of the proceedings but barred them from making oral or written submissions. Despite this, Agro Tech filed a written submission, defying the IPO’s directives.

The Verdict

Before the IPO could issue its decision, the division bench decided the Natco matter. It held that a patent application’s examination and pre-grant opposition are two distinct and independent processes, and that the opponent has no right to intervene in the examination procedure.

In light of this judgment, the IPO rejected Agro Tech’s written submission. It emphasised that the opponent has no locus standi under Section 14 and does not have the right to intervene in the broader examination process. The IPO also rejected all grounds for opposition put forth by Agro Tech, concluding that none of the cited documents dealt with the specific issue of the automatic closing of a box.

Implications of the Decision

The decision by the IPO marks a significant development in the patent landscape. The successful appeal in Natco brought much-needed clarification on the pre-grant opposition process. The IPO’s decision in this case highlights that a clear distinction between the examination and opposition processes facilitates a more streamlined and efficient handling of pre-grant oppositions. This is yet another example of how India’s IP regime is evolving at par with peer jurisdictions.

The granting of the patent to Berthault for his popcorn box invention is a testament to the robustness of the patent system in India, and a significant win for inventors seeking to protect their unique creations.