Executive Summary
Google LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 2705/KOLNP/2014), which claimed a method for labeling visited locations based on contact information. The Controller rejected it under Section 3(k) as being an algorithm or computer program per se. The High Court upheld the rejection, finding that the invention was directed to an abstract idea and lacked sufficient technical advancement.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Calcutta High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Google Llc vs The Controller Of Patents is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Narendra SinghvsAshendra Mishra
Narendra Singh filed an application seeking the appointment of an independent arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against Ashendra Mishra regarding disputes arising from their partnership firm, M/s. Kautilya Academy. The applicant alleged misuse of the trade mark and siphoning of funds by the respondents. However, the court dismissed the application, holding that since there were serious allegations of forgery, fraud, and dispute over the very execution of the partnership deed, the matter was not fit for arbitration. The proper remedy was directed to be sought in a civil court.
Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd.vsM/S Speedways Tyre Treads & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in favor of the Plaintiff, Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd., in its suit against M/S Speedways Tyre Treads & Anr. The court granted exemptions for pre-institution mediation and advanced service, recognizing the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court allowed the Plaintiff to seek an ex-parte ad-interim injunction by appointing a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises and stock of the Defendant, thereby initiating immediate protective measures against alleged trademark infringement.
Daikin Industries LtdvsController of Patents and Designs
Daikin Industries Ltd appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'Fluorinated Polymer and Surface Treating Agent Composition' by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the controller had cherry-picked claims and failed to address the final amendments, leading to an avoidable litigation. The High Court allowed the appeal.
Fiacre Telematics Private LimitedvsThe Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trademark
The petitioner appealed an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents, Kolkata, arguing that the rejection of their patent application lacked reasoning and failed to address the arguments regarding inventive steps. The court found a serious infirmity in the impugned order due to its unreasoned nature and remanded the matter.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation LtdvsAmul-Franchise.in & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted relief to Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (AMUL) in its ongoing trademark infringement suit. The court allowed AMUL to implead new parties, including the domain registrar and Google LLC, to pursue fraudulent activities related to their brand. Crucially, the court ordered the suspension and blocking of the infringing domain name www.educationdindia.com and directed the freezing of a specific bank account linked to the alleged infringement.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.