US Constitution Trumps Presidential Tariff Powers
28 Feb 2026
Non-Compliance with Court Summons Amounts to Contempt: Allahabad HC Issues Warrant Against HDFC Life Branch Head in Cheating Bail Case
02 Mar 2026
Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
SANJEEV NARULA
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)--Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC, the Appellant, filed the Indian Patent Application No. 8360/DELNP/2010 on 24th November, 2010 for invention titled "System for Advanced Bi-directional Predictive Coding of Interlaced Video" [hereinafter, "subject invention"]. This application was stylised as a divisional application, stemming from the parent Indian Patent Application No. 487/DELNP/2010 dated 30th January, 2006 [hereinafter, "parent application"]. The subject invention met rejection from Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs on the ground of Sections 16(1), 16(3) and 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 vide order dated 28th November, 2019 [referred to as "impugned order"]. Aggrieved, Appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act.
Subject invention and the divisional application
2. The subject invention pertains to a video compression technique. It is a system of encoding and decoding a current direct-mode macroblock in a current interlaced bi-
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 court has the authority to allow a change of name under Section 151 of the CPC.
The requirement of a plurality of inventions in the parent application does not apply when the Divisional Application is filed suo moto. The plurality of inventions need not be reflected in the claim....
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....
A divisional application under the Patents Act requires the existence of more than one invention in the parent application; failure to demonstrate plurality results in denial.
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 emphasized the necessity for a detailed analysis on inventive steps in patent applications, ruling that mere conclusions without discourse on prior art are insufficient for rejecting patent....
The novelty of a patent must be established by clear prior art disclosures, with emphasis on systematic analysis distinguishing novelty from non-obviousness.
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
Listen Article