p-g
11 October 2013Patents

Head & Shoulders maker files patent infringement lawsuit

The makers of shampoo and conditioner product Head & Shoulders have accused a rival company of patent infringement over anti-dandruff methods.

Procter & Gamble (P&G) has said Unilever is infringing on three of its patents with a large number of its anti-dandruff and scalp therapy products.

The case was filed on October 10 at the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, close to where P&G, which also owns brands including Gillette and Pantene, is based.

In dispute are US patent numbers 6,451,300, 6,974,569 and 6,649,155; P&G outlines an extensive list of Unilever’s products which it alleges infringe the patents’ specifications.

“It looks as though P&G are trying to blanket the anti-dandruff market,” said Richard Beem, patent attorney at Beem Patent Law in Chicago.

“The patent is defined by the scope of the claims which in this case is fairly broad,” Beem told WIPR.

P&G accuses Unilever of breaking an agreement between the two companies which was set out in 1998 in a term sheet.

According to the complaint, the term sheet provided a series of guidelines to deal with disputes and the companies had previously settled disagreements under its guidelines without the need for litigation.

According to the term sheet, after spotting a suspected infringement, the companies should take several steps including negotiations, mediation and, as a last step, arbitration.

Only after all these were completed could they bring legal proceedings.

However, P&G claims Unilever “repudiated” its terms and conditions by refusing to arbitrate and instead challenging the validity of the patents and filing for an inter partes review at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

“… in the midst of the post-mediation negotiations, and in direct contravention of the provisions of the term sheet, Unilever began three adversarial proceedings challenging the validity of P&G’s patents,” it says in the complaint.

“I expect it [Unilever] will challenge the good faith of P&G in filing the lawsuit, but the way P&G is spinning it is that they made efforts to abide to the terms outlined in the term sheet and asked for negotiations,” said Beem.

“Unilever will also explain its position with regards to the invalidity challenge and most likely ask for a delay of the case.”

“If the USPTO strikes down the patent and says its claims are invalid then the case will likely be dismissed.”

P&G are calling for the court to award damages and an injunction on the patents.

Already registered?

Login to your account

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk