PatentDismissed 30 August 2024
Blackberry Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 229/2022
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Bench
- Justice Prathiba M. Singh
- Outcome
- Dismissed
- Date of judgment
- 30/8/2024
Statutory provisions
Section 117A, Patents Act 1970 — AppealsSection 3(k), Patents Act 1970 — What are not inventionsSection 15, Patents Act 1970 — Power of Controller to refuse patentsSection 11a, Patents Act 1970 — Publication of applications
Key issue
Can a patent be granted for an invention that is primarily an algorithmic process, even if it has a technical effect on wireless systems?
Summary
Blackberry Limited appealed the refusal of its patent application for "Administration of Wireless Systems." The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs had refused the application on the grounds that the invention fell under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, as it was considered a computer program acting purely as a set of instructions without inventive hardware features. The appellant argued that the invention had a technical effect and was not merely an algorithm. The court analyzed the claims and specifications, finding that the invention's core functionality relied on conditional logic and procedural steps, essentially an algorithmic process. The court concluded that while the invention had a technical contribution, it was fundamentally an algorithm, which is not patentable under Indian patent law.
Result: Appeal for patent grant dismissed; Controller's refusal confirmed.
Tags
#Software Patent#Patentability#Section 3(k)#Algorithmic Process#Technical Effect
Judgment PDFOpen in new tab
TM