Unilever Limited v Colgate-Palmolive Company

In the Matter of the Patents Act 1952 - and - In the Matter of Patent Applications No. 457498 and No. 455463 by UNILEVER LIMITED - and - In the Matter of Oppositions thereto by COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY.

FINAL DECISION OF A SUPERVISION EXAMINER OF PATENTS:

This matter concerns two applications by Unilever Limited, both lodged on 24 October, 1969 under application Nos. 62810/69 and 62812/69. The applications were accepted on 6 November, 1974 and 6 January, 1975 respectively under serial Nos. 455463 and 457498. Both applications were opposed by Colgate- Palmolive Company under the provisions of section 59.

An application for an extension of time to serve evidence In support of the oppositions was opposed by Unilever and resulted in a hearing before Acting Commissioner Mr. G. Henshilwood on 15 August, 1975. Mr. Henshilwood granted the extension of time in a decision issued on 23 September, 1975. An application for an extension of time to serve evidence in answer was subsequently opposed by Colgate-Palmolive and resulted in a hearing before Assistant Commissioner Mr. P. Kildea on 19 January, 1976. The extension of time was granted by Mr. Kildea in a decision issued on 29 January, 1976.

The opposition was heard on 31 August, 1976 before Supervising Examiner (as he then was) Mr. R. Brown. In an interim decision issued on 4 April, 1978 Mr. Brown directed the applicant to request amendments under section 77 so as to cause the specification to comply with section 40. Amendments were duly proposed and particulars thereof were advertised.

Allowance of the proposed amendments was opposed by Colgate-Palmolive under the provisions of section 82 but preceding the hearing of this opposition both parties at various stages requested extensions of time to serve evidence, and one of these, a request by Colgate for a third extension of time to serve evidence-in-reply, resulted in a hearing before Supervising Examiner Mr. G.D. Carmichael, who, in a decision issued 6 March, 1980, refused the extension. Colgate subsequently made a request under reg. 59 for special leave to adduce further evidence and also a request under section 14 and reg. 83 that the applicant be required to produce certain documents. These two requests were Jointly heard by Assistant Commissioner Mr. R. Brown. His decision, issued on 31 March, 1982, admitted some of the new evidence and rejected the remainder. The request for a direction to produce documents was refused.

The section 82 opposition was heard by me on 4 August, 1982 and at the end of the period set aside for the hearing a large amount of written material was tendered on behalf of Colgate-Palmolive which constituted further submissions. Unilever lodged written submissions in reply on 4 November, 1982, and I issued the decision on 12 May, 1983 allowing the amendments.

Colgate-Palmolive initiated an appeal against that decision in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 9 June, 1983, however this appeal was dismissed by consent on 5 June, 1984. Colgate-Palmolive was offered the opportunity to be heard before a final decision was issued but it did not wish to be heard.

I am satisfied that there is no longer any lawful ground of objection to the applications and. complete specifications. I therefore direct that the applications and complete specifications may proceed to sealing subject to any appeal.

An award of costs in respect of these matters was made in Mr. Brown's interim decision.

(J L Roveta)Supervising Examiner of Patents

4 APR 1985

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the court dealt with patent applications lodged by Unilever Limited, application numbers 457498 and 455463, which were opposed by Colgate-Palmolive Company. The dispute arose under the Patents Act 1952 and was heard by a supervising examiner of patents, Mr. J.L. Roveta. Colgate-Palmolive contested Unilever's patent applications, and the matter involved several hearings and appeals over the years. The final decision by the supervising examiner allowed Unilever's applications to proceed to sealing, subject to any further appeal by Colgate-Palmolive.

The legal issues before the court centered on whether Unilever's patent applications were allowable under the Patents Act 1952, given the opposition by Colgate-Palmolive. This involved determining whether the proposed amendments to the specifications complied with the requirements of the Act, whether Colgate-Palmolive's requests for extensions of time to serve evidence were justified, and whether certain additional evidence and documents should be admitted. The court also needed to consider whether there were any lawful grounds to object to the patent applications, and if so, whether these objections could be overcome.

The supervising examiner, Mr. J.L. Roveta, examined the submissions and evidence from both parties, including the requests for extensions of time and additional evidence. The examiner found that the amendments proposed by Unilever were compliant with the Act and that there were no longer any lawful grounds to object to the applications. The court's reasoning was based on the submissions, the evidence presented, and the legal requirements of the Patents Act 1952. Mr. Roveta concluded that Unilever's applications and complete specifications could proceed to sealing, subject to any appeal by Colgate-Palmolive.

The final orders of the court were to allow Unilever's patent applications and complete specifications to proceed to sealing, subject to any appeal by Colgate-Palmolive. The court also noted that costs had already been awarded in the interim decision by Mr. Brown. The decision was made on 4 April 1985, and Colgate-Palmolive was offered the opportunity to be heard but chose not to participate further in the proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established