Patent

Update on Enercon’s Patent Litigation


Image from here
Recently, the remaining 7 revocation petitions filed by Enercon India Ltd. (EIL) against Aloys Wobben’s patents were heard by the new bench of the IPAB. Prashant has tracked this dispute here, here, here, herehere, and here. Enercon India has been represented by Mr. Parthasarthy, Senior Partner at Lakshmi Kumaran & Sreedharan. The Respondent is represented by Mr. Pravin Anand, Senior Partner at Anand and Anand.
As previously noted, the IPAB heard 19 revocation petitions filed by Enercon India Ltd. against Dr. Aloys Wobben’s patents. A bench of the IPAB, consisting of Mr. S. Chandrasekharan sitting as Technical Member and Ms. S. Usha sitting as Judicial Member, revoked 12 patents. These 12 orders have been challenged by Dr. Wobben by writ petitions before the Madras High Court. Sources have informed us that these writ petitions are still pending before the Madras High Court. On 26th August, 2013, the hearing on the preliminary point i.e. power of IPAB to look into the validity of the board resolution has been concluded and it seems that the court will bifurcate the issues into preliminary issues and merits and decide only the preliminary points now. 
The remaining 7 revocation petitions were to be heard after the appointment of a new technical member. Recently, a new bench consisting of Justice Prabha Sridevan (Judicial Member) and Mr. DPS Parmer (Technical Member) heard the matter and revoked 6 patents of Aloys Wobben, in their entirety. With regard 7th patent, the bench allowed the patentee to amend the application subject to the approval of the controller of patents. Patents were revoked as the IPAB found them to be anticipated and obvious. The IPAB dismissed the application for amendment of other patents by the Respondent because of their conduct which included a belated request for amendment. 
The details of these 7 revocations are: 
1. Patent No.200249 granted to Dr. Wobben for the invention titled “A wind power installation and process for the operation of the same” revoked in ORA/39/2009/PT/CH Order No. 174/2013 dated 8th August 2013. 
2. Patent No. 202935 granted to Dr. Wobben for the invention titled “Wind power installation with ring generator” revoked in ORA/10/2009/PT/CH Order No. 160 of 2013 dated 27th July, 2013. 
3. Patent No: 201538 granted to Dr. Wobben for the invention titled “A method for operating a wind turbine with an electrical generator and a wind turbine with an electrical generator” revoked in ORA/41/2009/PT/CH Order No. 157/2013 dated 19th July, 2013. 
4. Patent No: 203552 granted to Dr. Wobben for an the invention titled “Method for monitoring a Sensor” revoked in ORA/8/2009/PT/CH Order No. 123/2013 dated 12th June, 2013. 
5. Patent No.200608 granted to Dr. Wobben for the invention titled “A Wind Power Installation” revoked in ORA/7/2009/PT/CH Order No. 109/2013 dated 31st May, 2013. 
6. Patent No.196341 granted to Dr. Wobben for the invention titled “A Device for transmitting Electrical Energy From a Generator” revoked in ORA/3/2009/PT/CH Order No. 054/2013 dated 22nd March, 2013. 
7. Patent No.198648 granted to Dr. Wobben for the invention titled “An inverter for producing an alternating or three phase current from a DC voltage” ORA/6/2009/PT/CH Order No. 018/2013 dated 23rd January, 2013 (originally granted patent revoked but allowed to amend subject to approval by controller). 
Additionally, we have been informed that EIL has filed 28 other revocation applications before the IPAB, which are pending. And EIL has also filed 2 SLPs against the Bombay High Court order (on whether the Intellectual Property License Agreement between the parties is a concluded contract or not) and the hearing is already completed in the matter. The judgment is reserved. The issue whether simultaneous proceedings can lie in the High Court and IPAB has also been part-heard in the Supreme Court.
Tags:
Avatar

Aparajita Lath

Aparajita graduated from the WB National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata. She was formerly an editor of the NUJS Law Review. She is a lawyer based in Bangalore. All views expressed by her on the blog are her personal views.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.