The Delhi High Court (HC) Today (2nd April), imposed Rs 1 Lakh fine on Google for providing inaccurate information and failing to disclose the rejection of a patent by the European Patent Office (EPO)
Delhi HC today on Tuesday dismissed Google’s appeal challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs’ decision to reject the tech company’s patent application titled “Managing Instant Messaging Sessions on Multiple Devices”
Justice Prathiba M Singh fined Google Rs 1 lakh for providing inaccurate information and failing to disclose the rejection of a patent by the European Patent Office (EPO)
Read Also:Delhi High Court Directs MCD|| Calls For Improvement
The Court observed that despite Google’s claim that its patent application was abandoned before the EPO, records indicated itwas actually rejected due to a lack of inventive step.
The Court observed,
“Taking into account the assertion that the EPO application was abandoned, along with the fact that the corresponding EU patent application consisted of two applications, including a divisional application, both rejected for lack of inventive step, costs are also liable to be imposed in the present appeal. The Appellant not only misrepresented facts to the Court but also omitted to disclose the rejection of the EU parent application as well as the subsequent divisional application.”
The patent in question aimed to introduce a feature enabling the simultaneous transfer of instant messaging sessions across devices, allowing users to seamlessly continue conversations on different platforms. Additionally, it allowed users to specify their preference for not mirroring or duplicating messaging sessions when they’re inactive on the application, such as during periods of idleness or absence.
Read Also:Delhi High Court Rejects Congress Petitions on Tax Reassessment
Google’s application for this patent turned down by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs citing lack of novelty and inventive step under Section 15 of the Patents Act.
Subsequently, the company contested the decision before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). However, following the IPAB’s abolition, the appeal was transferred to the Delhi High Court.
Justice Singh concluded that the Controller of Patents was correct in determining that the steps outlined in Google’s patent application lacked inventive ingenuity and readily apparent to someone skilled in the relevant field.
The Court stated,
“The essence of the foregoing discussion is that, notwithstanding the arguments presented on behalf of the Appellant, the invention in question does not meet the criteria for patent approval due to a lack of inventive ingenuity. Consequently, the current appeal is untenable and must be dismissed,”
The Court also expressed gratitude for the assistance provided by Deputy Controller Neeraj Tayal in resolving the case.
Advocates Vineet Rohilla, Pankaj Soni, Debashish Banerjee, Ankush Verma, and Vaishali Joshi represented Google.
Advocates Arjun Mahajan and Apoorv Upmanyu represented the Controller of Patents.
Read the Case: [Google LLC v. The Controller of Patents]