Back
SANJEEV NARULA
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs – Respondent
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-directionally predicted field, in order to reduce the bit rate for transmission. Traditional video compression methodologies tend to consume significant memory owing to th
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.
A divisional patent application must be filed before the grant of a parent application; filing post-grant is impermissible under Section 16(1) of the Patents Act.
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 the requirement for thorough consideration of amended claims and legal submissions, particularly in relation to Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, an....
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
