Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

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

Similar News