PatentRemanded 20 December 2023
Priya Randolph and another v. The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
2023:MHC:5450
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Bench
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.
- Outcome
- Remanded
- Date of judgment
- 20/12/2023
Statutory provisions
Section 15, Patents Act 1970 — Power of Controller to refuse or require amendment of applicationsSection 117-A, Patents Act 1970 — Appeals to Appellate BoardSection 3(k), Patents Act 1970 — What are not inventions (mathematical or business method, computer program per se, or algorithm)
Key issue
Whether an invention for selectively concealing physical address information in e-commerce using technical means can be considered a non-patentable business method under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act.
Summary
The appellants applied for a patent for an invention designed to hide physical address information during e-commerce transactions using software, hardware, and firmware. The patent office initially rejected the application, citing a lack of inventive step and classifying the invention as a business method under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The High Court reviewed the decision, noting that while the e-commerce activity could be a business method, the invention itself concerned data privacy and protection through technical means. Thus, the court found the initial conclusion that it was purely a business method to be incorrect.
Result: The patent office's order refusing the patent was set aside, and the case was sent back for re-evaluation by a different officer.
Tags
#Section 3(k)#business method#computer related invention#CRI guidelines#data privacy#patentability
Judgment PDFOpen in new tab
TM