Back
SANJEEV NARULA
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal is directed against order of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Design (Respondent) dated 18 November 2019 ("Impugned Order") under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970 ("Act") refusing Appellant's patent application 1983/DELNP/2008 for the invention titled "FILTERING USER INTERFACE FOR A DATA SUMMARY TABLE".
2. In the hearing notice, the Controller raised objections on the following grounds: (A) Section 2(1)(j) of the Act, asserting that the invention lacks inventive steps in light of the prior arts, cited as D1 to D4. (B) The invention being a "computer program per se" is non-patentable under Section 3(k) of the Act; and (C) subject matter of amended claims 1 to 9 are excluded as per Section 3(n) of the Act (presentation of information). However, the Controller finally rejected the application under Section 3(k) of the Act, without delving into the other objections.
3. The Court has heard counsel for parties. Controller's reasoning in support of findings rendered by him are as follows:
"Regarding objection no. 9 |section 3(K)|:-
Amended claims 1-10 still objected to as being non-statutory subject matter under the provi
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider the revised CRI 2017 Guidelines, the technical contribution and effect of the invention, and the lack of mandatory novel ha....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for thorough consideration of amended claims and legal submissions, particularly in relation to Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, an....
The court established that a computer-related invention can be patentable if it demonstrates a technical effect that enhances system functionality, overcoming the exclusion of computer programs per s....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a divisional patent application must be distinct from the parent application, and the reasons for rejection of a patent application should be ....
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for a reasoned decision and scrupulous adherence to principles of natural justice while rejecting patent applications, highlighting the elements of inventive s....
The Controller must provide proper reasoning for rejecting a patent application and consider the applicant's submissions, failing which violates the principles of natural justice.
The requirement of associated hardware being novel and inventive is no longer a ground for rejection of patent applications for computer software.
The main legal point established is the requirement for proper reasoning in patent rejection orders, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the need for objective criteria in decision-maki....
The Controller must consider the differences between prior art and the claimed invention, provide a reasoned order, and adhere to the principles of audi alteram partem.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
