The court found that Google’s application was rejected for lack of inventive step. (Representative)
New Delhi:
The Delhi High Court, while dismissing his appeal, on Tuesday imposed a fine of Rs one lakh on Google for misrepresenting facts and for failure to disclose the information regarding the patent denial by the European Patent Office (EPO ).
Justice Prathiba M Singh dismissed Google’s appeal against the Assistant Controller of Patent and Design’s order rejecting the application.
Google has filed for a patent entitled “Managing Instant Messaging Sessions on multiple devices.”
The High Court noted that Google’s application was rejected for lack of inventive step. However, Google claimed that the application was withdrawn before the EPO.
“Considering the allegation that the EPO application was rejected and coupled with the fact that the corresponding EU application for the present patent consisted of not one but two applications, including a divisional application, and that both of these were rejected for lack of inventive step , costs may also be imposed in the present appeal,” Justice Singh said.
It further said: “The appellant in the present appeal has not only placed erroneous facts before the Court but has also failed to disclose the information relating to the refusal of the EU parent application and also of the divisional application which is consequentially was submitted.”
Google’s application was rejected by the Assistant Controller of Patent and Design for lack of inventive step.
It had challenged the order before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The appeal was transferred to the Supreme Court after the abolition of IPAB.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal saying, “The Controller is correct in stating that the step contemplated in the present patent application lacks an inventive step and is obvious to an expert in the field.”
“The sum and substance of the above discussion is that notwithstanding the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, the present invention is not entitled to the grant of a patent, in view of the lack of inventive step. Thus, the present appeal is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed,” the bench held.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by WhatsNew2Day staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)