Back to Home
Back to Case Archive
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