IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Controller of Patents – Respondent
(T) CMA (PT) No.49 of 2023 [OA/36/2020/PT/CHN]
Decided On : 03-07-2024
Patent - Invention - Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 2(1)(ja), 3(k), 10(5) - The court interpreted the exclusions under Section 3(k) regarding computer programs per se and assessed the inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja), concluding that the claimed invention demonstrated a technical effect and was patentable.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a patent application for an invention related to associating command services with multiple active components. The application faced objections regarding lack of inventive step and exclusion under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, leading to a rejection by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimed invention provided a technical effect by allowing multiple unrelated applications to be processed through a single command surface, thus enhancing system efficiency and overcoming the limitations of prior art.
Issues: Whether the claimed invention is patentable under the Patents Act, specifically regarding exclusions under Section 3(k) and the requirement of an inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja).
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the claimed invention was not merely a computer program per se, as it produced a technical effect that improved system functionality, thus meeting the criteria for patentability.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside, granting the patent for the claimed invention.
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 under section 10(5). The appellant filed a response thereto on 01 June 2018 by deleting claims 8 and 10-16 out of original claims 1-20, and by amending and renumbering the remaining claims as 1-12.
2. The hearing notice dated 26 September 2019 raised the following objections, viz., the amendments to the claim are beyond the scope of the claimed invention and therefore violate section 10(5) of the Act; amended claims 1-12 lack inventive step under section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act in view of prior arts D1, D2 and a newly cited prior art D4 (20070016857 A1); amended claims 9-12 are excluded under section 3(k) as they constitute computer programme per se and do not involve an inventive hardware. The hearing took place on 1 November 2019, pursuant to which the appellant filed written submissions on 15 November 2019, along with further amended claims 1-11. After the hearing, the application was rejected by impugned order dated 24 January 2020. The present appeal arises in the above facts and circumstances.
Counsel and their contentions:
3. Oral arguments on behalf of the appellant were submitted by Ms. Vindhya Mani, learned counsel, assisted by Mr. Kiran Manokaran and Mr. G. Sheerabhinath, appearing for M/s. Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan Attorneys; and on behalf of the respondents by Mr.S.Diwakar, learned SPC. Both the appellant and the respondent filed written submissions.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted the following: that independent claims 1 and 8 and the other dependent claims provide, inter alia, a method for associating a command surface with active components wherein the command surface is coupled to more than one component on a page, even when the components are associated with different applications, resulting in directing the command to more than one application for processing. The technical problem the invention attempts to address is the inability or inefficiency of conventional systems to process different unrelated applications simultaneously as each component includes its independent command surface to process the respective application. In order to solve this identified problem, the claimed invention provides a system and method wherein the command surface is coupled to more than one component on a page, even when the components are associated with different applications, resulting in directing the command to more than one application for processing. This is achieved by including the user selectable commands on the command surface for performing actions. The system provides a command manager which is configured to identify and acquire the command lists by polling the respective components. Different components/applications are registered to receive notifications from at least one same user selectable command included on the com
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.