TMPatentDismissed 1 July 2025
Kroll Information Assurance, LLC v. The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Ors
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 439/2022
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Bench
- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
- Outcome
- Dismissed
- Date of judgment
- 1/7/2025
Statutory provisions
Section 117A, Patents Act 1970 — Appeals to High CourtSection 2(1)(j), Patents Act 1970 — Definition of inventionSection 2(1)(ja), Patents Act 1970 — Definition of inventive stepSection 3(b), Patents Act 1970 — Inventions contrary to public order or moralitySection 3(k), Patents Act 1970 — What are not inventions (excludes algorithms and computer programs per se)Section 10(4)(c), Patents Act 1970 — Sufficiency of definition of claimsSection 59, Patents Act 1970 — Amendment of application and specificationSection 57, Patents Act 1970 — Amendment of application and specification
Key issue
Can a computer-implemented system for searching peer-to-peer networks be patented in India, or does it fall under the exclusions for algorithms and computer programs "per se"?
Summary
This appeal concerned the refusal of a patent application for a system and method to locate individuals or information on a peer-to-peer network. The Controller had rejected the application, citing that the claims were beyond the original scope and were merely an algorithm or computer program "per se". The court found that while the proposed amendments were permissible, the invention itself lacked a technical effect and was essentially a computer program. Therefore, it did not qualify as a patentable invention under Indian law.
Result: Appeal against the refusal of the patent application is dismissed, upholding the Controller's decision that the invention is not patentable under Section 3(k) of the Act.
Tags
#software patent#Section 3(k)
Judgment PDFOpen in new tab