Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's patent application details (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's analysis of inventive step (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. ruling on the appeal and patent application (Para 21) |
JUDGMENT :
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
Background
1. The appellant assails an order dated 29 September 2020 by which Indian Patent Application No.1783/CHENP/2012, which is the national phase application derived from PCT Application dated 15 September 2010, was rejected.
2. The appellant filed the above-mentioned application on 27 February 2012 for an invention titled "Message Communication of Sensor and other Data" claiming priority from 23 September 2009. Pursuant to a request for examination, the first examination report (FER) was issued by the respondent on 27 June 2019. The appellant filed a detailed response thereto on 27 December 2019. Along with such response, amended claims 1 to 14 were filed. The hearing was conducted on 14 July 2020 and the appellant filed written submissions thereafter. Eventually, by order dated 29 September 2020, the application was rejected. The present appeal arise
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 claimed invention must demonstrate a technical contribution over prior art to qualify for patentability, and the impugned order lacked sufficient reasoning on this aspect.
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....
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 upheld the denial of a patent claim on grounds of lack of inventiveness, affirming that minor amendments did not confer novelty over existing prior art as per Patents Act standards.
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a detailed analysis of the existing knowledge and how the subject invention lacks inventiveness in light of the prior art when ....
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
