High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Inventive Ingenuity Must Prevail: Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection of Patent Application for Portable Vehicle Management System

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court has upheld the rejection of a patent application for a “Portable Vehicle Management System,” dismissing an appeal by Mahesh Gupta against the decision of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court, presided over by Justice Sanjeev Narula, concluded that the invention lacked an inventive step, making it obvious in light of existing technologies referenced in prior art documents D4 and D5.

Assessment of Inventive Step: The court’s evaluation hinged on whether the claimed invention demonstrated an inventive step, as defined under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Indian Patent Act, 1970. The invention was compared against prior art documents D4 (US2002019703A1) and D5 (US2015019266A1). Justice Narula observed, “The claimed features of portability and comprehensive monitoring were well-known and lacked inventive ingenuity.”

Portability and Comprehensive Monitoring: The court noted that while the invention aimed to integrate multiple functionalities within a portable vehicle tracker, these features were not novel. “D5 explicitly introduces the concept of a portable device with inbuilt sensors that can be monitored wirelessly through a remote server, making the portability aspect of the subject invention non-inventive,” Justice Narula stated.

In its detailed judgment, the court emphasized the importance of the doctrine of non-obviousness and the concept of a Person Skilled in the Art (PSITA). Justice Narula explained, “The motivation to combine the teachings of D4 and D5 to achieve a portable, comprehensive vehicle monitoring system would be apparent to a PSITA, reflecting a logical progression rather than an inventive step.”

Justice Narula remarked, “The step towards combining these systems does not require inventive acumen but follows logically from the existing technological trends and needs identified in these prior arts.”

Decision: The court’s decision reinforces the stringent standards for patentability, particularly the requirement for an inventive step. By affirming the rejection, the judgment underscores the necessity for genuine innovation in patent applications. This ruling is expected to guide future patent evaluations, emphasizing the importance of demonstrating significant technical advancements beyond prior art.

Date of Decision: May 29, 2024

Mahesh Gupta vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Similar News