District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala 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