CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Despite Submissions, Subject Invention Lacks Inventive Step; Obvious to Person Skilled in the Art - Delhi High Court Dismisses Google LLC's Patent Appeal

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Delhi dismissed an appeal filed by Google LLC against the refusal of a patent application. The decision, pronounced by Justice Prathiba M. Singh, dealt with a patent application titled ‘Managing Instant Messaging Sessions on Multiple Devices’.

 

The central legal point revolved around the inventive step and novelty in patent law. The appeal, filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenged the refusal of the patent on grounds of lack of novelty, inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(k) of the Act.

 

Google LLC's patent application (No. 5429/DELNP/2007) proposed a method for managing instant messaging sessions across multiple devices. The Controller of Patents had earlier refused the application, citing lack of novelty and inventive step, with prior arts like D1: US2003101343 significantly overlapping in functionalities.

 

Claim Construction: The court delved into the specifics of the claimed invention, focusing on its key features like concurrent sign-on, session transfer, and user preferences for non-mirroring.

 

Assessment of Prior Art: Prior Art D1 was scrutinized, revealing substantial overlap with Google's application, particularly in session data transfer and user preferences.

 

Inventive Step Analysis: The court applied established tests, concluding that the patent application's features were obvious to a skilled person.

 

Misrepresentation by Appellant: Google LLC incorrectly reported the status of the corresponding European patent application, leading to the imposition of costs for presenting incorrect facts.

 

Decision: The High Court upheld the decision of the Controller of Patents, finding the patent application lacking in inventive step and novelty. The claims were deemed obvious extensions of prior art D1, leading to the dismissal of Google LLC's appeal.

Date of Decision: 2nd April, 2024

Google LLC versus The Controller of Patents

Latest Legal News