Delhi High Court dismisses Google appeal challenging rejection of patent

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed Google LLC appeal against the rejection of the grant of patent by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs in 2019. The court has imposed Rs 1 lakh costs on Google LLC.

A single judge bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh ordered that 50 per cent of the costs shall be deposited by Google with the office of Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPTDM) and remaining to be paid to the Centre’s standing counsel.

Notably, Google had lodged the appeal against the rejection of its application for a grant of a patent titled Managing Instant Messaging Sessions on Multiple Devices. The application was declined by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs under Section 15 of the Patents Act. It was refused on the grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step.

The High Court remarked that Google not only presented wrong facts in the appeal but also failed to disclose the information regarding the refusal of its EU patent application as well as the divisional application which was filed consequently. Hence, the disclosure requirements under the Act are not complied with, the court added.

It observed that despite the submissions made on behalf of Google, the subject invention was not entitled to grant of a patent in view of the lack of inventive steps. Furthermore, it also pointed out that one of the submissions made on behalf of Google was that the corresponding EU application of the subject patent was abandoned and not rejected by the EPO. Nonetheless, the court said that the counsel for the Controller of Patents noted that the corresponding subject patent application was not abandoned, but was rejected by the EPO.

The Delhi High Court stated that taking note the submission made that the EPO application was abandoned and coupled with the fact that the corresponding EU application for the subject patent comprised of not one but two applications, including a divisional application, and that they both were declined for lack of inventive step, in the present appeal costs are also liable to be imposed.

Leave a Reply