Full Judgment Text
2023:DHC:3748
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Decision:10 May, 2023
+ C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 140/2022
MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Vindhya S. Mani, Mr. Gursimran
Singh Narula and Ms. Vaishali Joshi,
Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar,
CGSC with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra,
Mr. Sagar Mehlawat and Mr.
Alexander Mathai Paikaday,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal is directed against order of the Assistant Controller
of Patents and Design (Respondent) dated 18 November 2019 (“ Impugned
Order ”) under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970 (“ Act ”) refusing
Appellant’s patent application 1983/DELNP/2008 for the invention titled
ILTERING SER NTERFACE OR ATA UMMARY ABLE
“F U I F A D S T ”.
2. In the hearing notice, the Controller raised objections on the following
grounds: (A) Section 2(1)(j) of the Act, asserting that the invention lacks
inventive steps in light of the prior arts, cited as D1 to D4. (B) The invention
Signature Not Verified
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 140/2022 Page 1 of 6
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:27.05.2023
12:57:42
2023:DHC:3748
being a "computer program per se" is non-patentable under Section 3(k) of
the Act; and (C) subject matter of amended claims 1 to 9 are excluded as per
Section 3(n) of the Act (presentation of information). However, the
Controller finally rejected the application under Section 3(k) of the Act,
without delving into the other objections.
3. The Court has heard counsel for parties. Controller’s reasoning in
support of findings rendered by him are as follows:
“ Regarding objection no. 9 |section 3(K)|:-
Amended claims 1-10 still objected to as being non-statutory subject matter under
the provisions contained in section 3 (k) of the Patents act 1970.
The present invention (i.e., as claimed in claim 1 and claim 9) involves processing
large amount of primary data based on one or more filter options as has been
claimed in claim 9. Furthermore, the present subject matter also involves
determining the data type of the data present within one or more field and
automatically moving the field into the appropriate zone within the layout pane.
Pertinent Section of the statute:
The section 3(k) of Patents Act is quoted below for reference:
a mathematical or business method or a computer program per se or algorithms .
The section proscribes patenting of matter falling under any of the categories
mentioned above. Admittedly, the matter does not relate to a mathematical or
business method. However, whether it pertains to category titled computer
program per se is an inquiry which I would make in the light of the facts pertinent
to this case.
In the recently published guidelines for examining the computer related
inventions, the test indicators to determine patentability are:
1. Properly construe the claim and identify the actual contribution;
2. If the contribution lies only in mathematical method, business method or
algorithm, deny the claim;
3. If the contribution lies in the field of computer programme, check whether it is
claimed in conjunction with a novel hardware and proceed to other steps to
determine patentability with respect to the invention. The computer programme in
itself is never patentable. If the contribution lies solely in the computer programme,
deny the claim. If the contribution lies in both the computer programme as well as
hardware, proceed to other steps of patentability.
Signature Not Verified
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 140/2022 Page 2 of 6
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:27.05.2023
12:57:42
2023:DHC:3748
If I read through the principal claim 1 and 9, I find that there is a general purpose
computer system, in which method steps are executed.
From the above paragraph, it is clear that the actual contribution of the invention
solely lies in software and there is no specific hardware available in the claimed
invention. All the steps of the invention are carried out by computer program only.
The only hardware mentioned in the present invention are the general purpose
computer system, which comprises processor which executes program in a
conventional or normal manner.
Applicant's submission that the present invention complies with the official
requirements set forth by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ericsson vs. Intex (order
in CS (OS) No. 1045/ 2014 dated March 13, 2015). The order holds that, 'Thus, it
is appears to me prima facie that any invention which has a technical contribution
or has a technical effect and is not merely a computer program per se alleged by
the defendant and the same is patentable.' In this regard, it is stated that claimed
invention does not qualify the said order as the contribution lies solely in the area
of the excluded subject matter as computer program. If the computer program is
able to operate the computer/system in a new and different way to consider it has a
technical effect/technical contribution rather than processing the data in a
conventional manner. Therefore, in view of the above, the claims 1-10 are not
patentable u/s 3 (k) for being computer program per se.
It is noted that although the hearing submissions have attempted to address the
other requirements, yet without fulfilling the substantive requirements of the
Patents Act, 1970 i.e. Section 3(k), this instant application is not found in order for
grant.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid and unsatisfactory submissions made by the Agents
in respect of the pertinent requirements as raised in the said hearing notice, this
instant application no. 1983/DELNP/2008 does not comply with the requirements
of the Patents Act, 1970. I, therefore, hereby order that the grant of a patent is
refused under the provisions of Section 15 of the Patents Act.
Dated: 18/11/2019
(Srinivasarao Reesu)
Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs”
4. Heard the counsel for parties. The Impugned Order is not legally
tenable for several reasons discussed hereinafter. Firstly, the subject
application has been examined relying upon Guidelines for Examination of
Computer-Related Inventions (CRIs) of 2016, without noticing the revised
guidelines of 2017 (“ CRI 2017 Guidelines ”) which were in force on the
Signature Not Verified
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 140/2022 Page 3 of 6
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:27.05.2023
12:57:42
2023:DHC:3748
1
date of passing of the Impugned Order. CRI 2017 Guidelines provide
clarification on the patentability of computer-related inventions and bring
more clarity and consistency to the examination process for computer-
related inventions. They cite the Joint Parliamentary Committee discussions
on introduction of the term ‘ per se ’ with computer programme under Section
3(k) of the Act, which notes the legislative intent behind introducing the
phrase ‘ per se ’. These new CRI guidelines outline certain criteria that
inventions related to computer programs, must meet in order to be
considered patentable in India which is radically different from the previous
version of the guidelines that have been relied upon by the Controller. One
of the key improvements in the CRI 2017 Guidelines is the increased focus
on technical effect and technical contributions. The new guidelines
emphasize that for an invention to be eligible for a patent, it must
demonstrate a technical advancement and a technical contribution beyond
the generic computer program. The ambiguities and uncertainties that
existed in the previous guidelines have been removed and CRI 2017
Guidelines. They provide more specific criteria for determining the
patentability of computer-related inventions. Thus, Controller’s examination
through the prism of 2016 Guidelines cannot be sustained and the subject
invention must be re-examined.
5. Secondly, the Controller has misapplied the decision of this Court in
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v. Intex Technologies (India)
1
On page 3 of the Impugned Order, Respondent has given only a vague indication that the present
invention has been analysed under the recently published guidelines for examining the computer related
inventions. However, the guidelines quoted on page 4 of the Impugned Order are not from the latest CRI
2017 Guidelines.
Signature Not Verified
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 140/2022 Page 4 of 6
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:27.05.2023
12:57:42
2023:DHC:3748
2
Limited . Despite acknowledging the significance of technical effect and
contribution as guiding principles in the evaluation of Computer-Related
Inventions (CRIs), the Respondent fails to consider the Court's observations
that even a computer program may qualify for patent protection if it
showcases a technical contribution to the field or delivers a discernible
technical effect.
6. Thirdly, the Controller has emphasised upon the lack of novel
hardware as one of the grounds for rejecting the patent application. In the
Court’s view, the Controller has wrongly assumed that absence of novel
hardware renders computer programme to be inherently non-patentable. This
observation is erroneous as for technical effect and contribution in the field
of computer programmes, conjunction with novel hardware may not be
always be necessary. Under the 2017 CRI Guidelines, dependency on novel
hardware is not mandatory for the patentability of computer-related
inventions. The CRI 2017 Guidelines acknowledge that inventions related to
computer programs can be patentable if they meet the criteria of
demonstrating a technical advancement and a technical contribution beyond
the generic computer program. In other words, even if an invention is purely
software-based, it may still be considered patentable if it provides a
technical solution to a technical problem and goes beyond conventional
programming techniques. The focus is on the technical nature and technical
effect of the invention rather than the presence of specific hardware
components. Thus, the entire foundation of the Impugned Order is flawed
and it deserves to be set aside.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.
2
2015 SCC OnLine Del 8229 at Paragraph 120.
Signature Not Verified
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 140/2022 Page 5 of 6
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:27.05.2023
12:57:42
2023:DHC:3748
The Impugned Order is quashed. The Controller shall re-consider the
application and analyse the technical contribution and technical effect of the
invention claimed in the subject application. This decision shall be rendered
keeping in mind the observations made herein above, the views expressed
3
by this Court in Ferid Allani v. Union of India , CRI 2017 Guidelines,
Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure (2019), as also other
judgments on this issue rendered by this Court.
8. Taking into account the relatively short lifespan of the potential
patent, which is projected to expire as early as 2026, it is hereby ordered that
a decision shall be reached within a timeframe of four months, starting from
date of release of this order.
9. The Court has not expressed any opinion on the other objections
raised in the hearing notice. However, it is expected that the Controller shall,
pass a comprehensive order dealing with other objections set out in the
hearing notice while deciding the application afresh.
10. Allowed in the above terms.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 10, 2023
d.negi
th
[Corrected and released on 27 May, 2023]
3
2019 SCC OnLine Del 11867
Signature Not Verified
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 140/2022 Page 6 of 6
Digitally Signed
By:NITIN KAIN
Signing Date:27.05.2023
12:57:42