Back
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Controller of Patents – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.
PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970, prays (i) that this Court set aside the order dated 24.01.2020, passed by the Respondent herein in Application No. 5584/CHENP/2010 dated 07.09.2010 and hold that the claimed invention is patentable subject matter and involves an inventive step and consequently to issue patent on the said application; and (ii) to pass such further and other order(s) as the court may seem fit and proper in the interests of justice.
Background
The appellant filed Indian Patent Application No.5584/CHENP/2010 on 07 September 2010 for the grant of patent for an invention titled 'Associating Command Services with Multiple Active Components'. The said application was published on 08.04.2011. Based on a request for examination dated 05 March 2012, the First Examination Report (FER) dated 23 March 2018 raised objections on the grounds of: lack of inventive step by citing D1 (US US 2005108734 A1), D2 (US 2007209008 A1) and D3 (US2007186212 A1); exclusion from patent-protection under sections 3(k) and 3(m) of the Patents Act, 1970 (the Patents Act); and lack of sufficient disclosure u
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 novelty of a patent must be established by clear prior art disclosures, with emphasis on systematic analysis distinguishing novelty from non-obviousness.
An invention must demonstrate novelty and an inventive step to be patentable; mere refinement of existing methods does not suffice.
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 allowed the amendment of claims at the appellate stage and found that the invention satisfied the criteria of inventive step.
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 ....
The claimed invention presents an inventive step over prior art by simplifying complex sensor data communication, lacking obviousness per Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act.
The patent application was rejected due to lack of enablement, clarity, and inventive step, failing to meet statutory requirements under the Patents Act.
The court established that inventions based on traditional knowledge are not patentable if they do not demonstrate a significant inventive step beyond known properties.
Passing of a reasoned and a speaking order is an integral part of the principle of audi alteram partem. The Controller must consider the existing knowledge and how a person skilled in the art would m....
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
