Author: Subhajit Samanta, V Year of B.A.,LL.B from Bikash Bharati Law College.
In this case, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has repeated that the computer-related creations revealing ‘technical contribution’ or ‘technical impact’ are patentable even they might be established upon a computer program. In this case, the petitioner filed a patent application for wanting a license of a patent for his creation titled “a strategy and mechanism for accessing data authorities and services on the web”. However, there were numerous requests and amongst them, claims nine pursued security for a connected machine assertion written in implies plus process structure.
The declared innovation accomplishes this purpose in a way that is simpler and quicker to operate than procedures learned at the time of innovation. In this case, more than nineteen and half years were expired in determining the current application by extending complaints. The term of a patent in India is twenty years and this case of Ferid Allani (petitioner) vs Assistant Controller of Patents demonstrates the intricacy and ambit of Patent Act section 3(k) about a patentable controlled issue connected to the computer invention.
BACKGROUND & FACTS
The petitioner named Ferid Allani who is a citizen of Tunisia, on 17.07.2002 filed a petition under the National Phase patent application No. IN/PCT/2002/00705/DEL with the IPO. The Indian application is comprised of both manner and machine stakes connecting to “accessing data authorities and actions on the web”. After analyzing the Indian patent application, on 21.02.2005 the IPO granted a First Examination Report (FER) where the technique requests were challenged for being supervised to a computer program itself in Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 and the machine claims were disputed for inventive step and requiring novelty over the previous arts mentioned in the FER. The petitioner responded to the FER along with the request amendments. However, on 21.09.2005, an order was granted by the IPO which declared that despite the assertion amendments, the Indian patent application was alleging a controlled issue omitted (or non-patentable) in Section 3(k) of the Act. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed by Ferid Allani (petitioner) before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court questioning the conflicts generated under the order om 21.09.2005. However, a single judge of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court laid down on 25.02.2008 that the IPO would confer the explanations for the refusal and as per the issue was remanded back to the IPO but Ferid Allani (petitioner) was provided four weeks to respondent against the IPO’s declaration. Moreover, the Hon'ble Court also supervised that Ferid Allani (petitioner) would be conferred a verbal hearing, by the requirements of the Patents Act before determining the petitioner’s Indian patent application. Thereafter, on hearing of the petitioner, the IPO likewise dismissed the Indian patent application vide a thorough ruling on 18.11.2008 determining that procedure claims one to eight were authorized to a computer program itself and prohibited (non-patentable) in Section 3(k) and device claims nine to fourteen inventive step and lacked novelty. After that, on 18.11.2008, Ferid Allani (petitioner) requested IPAB (the Intellectual Property Appellate Board) against the IPO’S thorough declaration. However, IPAB rejected the plea vide its declaration dated 25.03.2013 referring to lack of technical advance and technical effect under the alleged invention and effect corroborating the IPO’S refusal then IPAB order was challenged by a writ petition on the dated 25.03.2013.
Whether the patent application would be allotted in Section 2(1) (j)of the Patents Act, 1970?
Whether the patent application ought to be justified by the procedure of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970?
CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES
During the tenure of prosecution, the Petitioner claimed that the aforesaid expectation of the declared invention is accomplished in a manner that is easier and quicker to operate from the procedures learned at the time of invention. However, the applicant acknowledged that the refusal of the Indian patent application was erroneous as the Indian patent application reveals a technical improvement and a technical effect. Due to upheld the contention, the petitioner depended on numerous portions of the patent clarification and several protocols granted by the IPO in respect of the assessment of CRI'S. Moreover, the petitioner proposed that the claimed invention boosts more productive database examination methods, more financial usage of system memory or higher rate of accessing documented database which is comprising “technical effect” and claimed invention would not collapse in Section 3(k) and enabled. On the other side, the respondents contended that the Hon'ble High Court in its writ jurisdiction would not be re-considered technological statements, whereas the IPAB which is a technical tribunal that already took a position in the course established upon the technological arguments.
After hearing the statements of the petitioner and respondent, and depending on Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, several guidelines allocated by the IPO in concern of the assessment of CRI'S legislative narrative of Section 3(k) containing with Report of the Joint Committee upon the Patents (Second Amendment) Bill, 1991 and essential ingredient provisions to the European Union like Article 52 of the European Patent Convention, the Hon'ble Court enabled the appeal. However, the IPO was approved to re-examine the Indian patent application bringing into report the statements of the Hon'ble Court. Thereafter, the IPO was instructed to allocate a conclusion upon the Indian patent application by two months from the day of the declaration of the current order based upon the re-examination and after providing a hearing to the petitioner. However, the Hon'ble Court explained and repeated the before prevailing doctrines that patentability of CRI would be evaluated established upon the existence of “technical contribution” or “technical effect‟. However, if the invention clarifies a “technical contribution‟ or a “technical effect‟ then it would patentable although it may be established upon a computer program as well as the court also referred that the impact of computer programs generate is important to determine the patentability. Moreover, the Hon'ble Court observed that the word “technical effect‟ would be clarified as per the judicial precedents, essential ingredients provisions and methods of patent offices of foreign jurisdictions. While examining the topic of patentability of CRI'S, depending upon the Report of the Joint Committee on the Patents (Second Amendment) Bill 1991, the Hon'ble Court laid down that the words 'Per se' were contained under Section 3(k) to guarantee that legitimate invention which is formulated established upon computer programs are not dismissed patents.
Throughout this order, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was reconfirmed and established for the analysis CRI'S for patentability, the IPO would be enquired into the technological contribution and technological effect of the contended invention. However, this judgement also demonstrates that the analysis of CRI'S, the IPO would be taken into the matter of all CRI based upon guidelines allocated by the IPO from day to day and the legislative narrative of Section 3(k) of the Act, essential ingredient provisions existing in other jurisdictions and the jurisdiction involved throughout the foreign patent offices. However, this judgement also appears to demonstrate that similar tests of patentability like “technical contribution" and "technical effect” may also be connected for CRI'S in the field of Blockchain Technologies and Artificial Intelligence.