Back
SANJEEV NARULA
Oneempower Pte Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Controller of Patents And Designs – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)--Oneempower Pte Ltd. (Appellant), a loyalty marketing and commerce technology company, challenges the rejection of their patent application No. 10508/DELHNP/2013 for the invention titled "A Transaction Reward System". The crux of the present dispute lies in the characterisation of Appellant's invention as a business method and a computer programme per se by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [hereinafter, "Controller"], vide order dated 24th November, 2022 [hereinafter, "impugned order"]. In this comprehensive exposition, while deciding the appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, we embark on an examination of the Appellant's arguments pertaining to the `technical effect' of the claimed invention as well as a scrutiny of the Controller's reasoning for rejecting it under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act.
THE SUBJECT INVENTION
2. Let us first delve into the essence of the invention, peering beneath the surface to unravel the claims made by the Appellant in the subject invention.
3. The subject invention is a Transaction Reward System [hereinafter interchangeably, "TRS" or "subject invention"] which enables the user to select
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claimed invention primarily involving conducting business or organizing commercial transactions, rather than providing a technical solution ....
Point of Law : Technical advance proposed in invention is simply a method of doing business, even if it is technically smarter way of doing business and has rejected application under Section 3(k) of....
The Assistant Controller erred by not considering amended claims in a patent application, necessitating reevaluation on grounds of novelty and patentability, distinguishing between business methods a....
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 ....
An invention must demonstrate novelty and an inventive step to be patentable; mere refinement of existing methods does not suffice.
The novelty of a patent must be established by clear prior art disclosures, with emphasis on systematic analysis distinguishing novelty from non-obviousness.
The court has the authority to allow a change of name under Section 151 of the CPC.
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
