Software — India Patent Cases
74 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 3 · 74 total
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Qualcomm Incorporated appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application for 'Methods and Apparatus for Estimating Departure Time'. The rejection was based on the grounds that the invention lacked inventive step. The High Court found the impugned proceedings too cryptic and lacking in reasoning, leading it to allow the appeal.
M/s.Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed the refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs to grant a patent for its computer-related invention, 'Delegating Instant Messaging Sessions'. The core dispute centered on whether the software met the criteria for patentability under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Microsoft, emphasizing that an invention based on a computer program is not automatically excluded if it demonstrates a clear technical effect or contribution, aligning with international jurisprudence and revised Patent Office guidelines.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc filed an appeal challenging the Patent Office's order rejecting its application titled "DISCOVERY OF SECURE NETWORK ENCLAVES". The rejection was based on grounds related to Sections 2(l)(j) and Section 10(4) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court released the matter from part-heard status and listed it for further hearing.
Busy Infotech Pvt Ltd v.Xpert Tricks Softwares & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an ongoing suit filed by Busy Infotech Pvt Ltd against various defendants for copyright infringement and trademark passing off related to its 'BUSY Software.' The court noted that previous interim injunctions were in place, and several pro-forma defendants had been discharged after providing undertakings. On December 8, 2023, the court directed the Plaintiff to file an updated memo of parties within one week before listing the matter again.
Priya Randolph v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant challenged the Controller's decision rejecting their patent application (201641026786) on the grounds that the invention was a 'business method' under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The court examined the claims, which related to concealing physical address information during e-commerce transactions using software and hardware. The High Court held that the monopoly claim was on a technical solution for data privacy, not merely a business method.
Atos India Pvt. Ltd v.The State of Maharashtra
Atos India Pvt. Ltd challenged an order from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, arguing that its work providing bug fixing and maintenance services on QAD Inc.'s ERP software was a service contract, not a sale of goods or developed software. The core dispute revolved around whether modifying existing proprietary code constituted 'development' leading to a taxable supply under the MVAT Act. The Bombay High Court ultimately ruled in favor of Atos India, holding that the transaction was fundamentally an indivisible contract for services.
Emerson Process Mangement Power And Water Solutions Inc v.Controller Of Patents
Emerson Process Management filed appeals challenging the rejection of its patent applications (Nos. 1253/DEL/2006 and 4197/DEL/2015) relating to computer software. The court noted that the main ground for rejection—the lack of novelty and inventiveness in associated hardware—no longer aligns with current Patent Office guidelines.
Emerson Process Management Power And Water Solutions Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emerson Process Management appealed the rejection of its patent applications (Nos. 1253/DEL/2006 and 4197/DEL/2015) for computer software patents. The court noted that the main ground for rejection—the novelty and inventiveness of associated hardware—no longer applied under current Patent Office guidelines.
Blackberry Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed a rejection order by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its divisional patent application (8584/DELNP/2007). The appeal was filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. However, the court disposed of the appeal because the term of the parent patent application had expired during the pendency of the appeal.
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC appealed a refusal order by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs regarding its patent application 'Managing Instant Messaging Sessions on Multiple Devices'. The refusal was based on lack of novelty and inventive step citing prior art. The court directed that an IPO official must be present for further hearings to address these technical objections.
Nripendra Kashyap, Constituted Attorney Of Blackberry Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents
The appellant, Blackberry Limited, challenged the refusal of its Indian Patent Application No. 8984/CHENP/2012 by the Assistant Controller. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and anticipation by prior art documents D1-D4. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the Assistant Controller failed to address key submissions made by the appellant regarding the technical differences between the invention and the cited prior art.
Business Objects Software Limited v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Business Objects Software Limited filed an appeal challenging the refusal of its patent application (No. 7583/CHENP/2011). The Appellant subsequently sought permission to withdraw this appeal to file it before the High Court of Madras. The court dismissed the present appeal as withdrawn.
Flipkart Internet Private Ltd v.The Joint Controller of Patents and Designs
Flipkart Internet Private Ltd filed an appeal challenging the order of the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs which dismissed a Post-grant Opposition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 312437. The opposition contended that the patent lacked novelty, inventive step, or was not patentable under various sections of the Patents Act. The High Court examined the technical aspects and found no infirmity in the impugned order.
Cashgrail Private Limited v.Blue Horizone Infotech Llp
The Delhi High Court has formally registered the suit filed by Cashgrail Private Limited against Blue Horizone Infotech LLP concerning alleged infringement of online games and trademarks. Cashgrail claims that the defendant's 'LUDO TOURNAMENT' replicates essential features of its proprietary skill-based games, such as 'Ludo Supreme League.' The court allowed the suit to proceed while ensuring the defendant receives an opportunity to respond before any interim orders are passed.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the Controller of Patents' order rejecting its PCT National Phase application. The rejection was based primarily on alleged failure to submit proper method claims and procedural lapses regarding a delayed Form-3 filing. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the rejection was not dealt with on merits and procedural errors did not justify rejection, thus remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei Technologies appealed the rejection of its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947017802) by the Controller of Patents. The Controller rejected the application citing failure to submit proper method claims and procedural lapses regarding Form-3 filing delay. The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the grounds for rejection were untenable and remanding the matter.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd v.The Controller of Patents
Huawei appealed the Controller of Patents' decision to reject its PCT National Phase patent application (No. 201947017802). The rejection was based on alleged failures regarding proper method claim submission and procedural delays concerning Form-3 filing. The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the grounds were untenable and remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Eicore Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Eexpedise Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Eicore Technologies filed a suit against Eexpedise Technologies alleging infringement of its software 'HealthBuzz' and misuse of confidential information by former employees who formed competing entities. The Plaintiffs sought interim injunctions restraining the Defendants from copying, publishing, or providing services related to their proprietary software. While the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants were infringing copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957, the Court recognized the highly technical nature of the dispute.
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited v.Canva Pty Ltd
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited filed a suit seeking an injunction against Canva Pty Ltd, alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. IN 360726, which covers a system and method for creating and sharing interactive content. The Plaintiff argued that Canva's 'Present and Record' feature directly infringes the patented technology used in their product, 'My Show & Tell'. After analyzing the claims and evidence, the Delhi High Court found prima facie merit in the Plaintiff's case.
Oracle International Corporation v.Controller Of Patents
Oracle International Corporation filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' order regarding the patentability of its application (3566/CHENP/2006). The appeal argued that the subject matter was eligible for patent protection and not excluded as a business method or computer program per se. However, the appellant subsequently withdrew the appeal.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft challenged the Assistant Controller's decision rejecting its patent application for a network authentication system under Section 3(k) of the Patent Act, arguing that the invention provided a genuine technical solution to security problems. The Delhi High Court set aside the rejection based on the flawed interpretation of 'computer program per se,' emphasizing that an algorithm should not be automatically excluded if it offers a tangible technical contribution. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Controller for re-examination regarding novelty and inventive step.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner appealed a matter before the Delhi High Court concerning an objection related to Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court heard arguments and directed the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks to ensure the presence of a Controller for assistance on the next date.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent application for a filtering user interface. The Controller rejected the application under Section 3(k) as being a 'computer program per se'. The High Court overturned this decision, emphasizing that software can be patentable if it demonstrates a technical contribution and applying the updated CRI 2017 Guidelines.
Oneempower Pte Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Oneempower Pte Ltd appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'A Transaction Reward System' (TRS), arguing that it possessed a technical effect and was not merely a business method. The Controller rejected the application, holding that TRS was fundamentally an administrative or organizational business solution implemented using standard technology.
Google Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Google LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a method and system for capturing panoramic images. The core contention was that the Patent Office failed to examine the amended claims under Section 13(3) of the Patents Act, 1970, leading to an unsustainable rejection order.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner challenged the position taken by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The Court found the affidavit filed by the Respondent to be inadequate in reasoning regarding Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. Consequently, the court directed the Controller General to ensure specialized Controllers assist the court on the next hearing date.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs Patent Office
Blackberry Limited appealed a refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents which held that its method claims were not patentable because they consisted of executable software instructions. The High Court set aside this refusal, citing judicial precedents, and remanded the application for fresh consideration.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
The appeal concerns the patentability of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs). The court heard arguments regarding the interpretation of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The respondent was given an opportunity to file an affidavit on whether the subject patent makes a technical contribution or effect.
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents that refused its Indian Patent Application (No. 5429/DELNP/2007) under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the cited prior art did not disclose the claimed invention.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs that refused its application for patent (No. 3304/DEL/2005). The refusal was based on Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, which prohibits patents for computer programs. Microsoft argued that the reliance on outdated guidelines was incorrect and cited prior court views supporting patentability.
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.