Section 3 (K) of Indian Patent Act: Case Study

Ms. Anjana Mohan, intern at Khurana and Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys attempts to analyze case study related to section 3 (k) of Patent Act, 1970.

ACCENTURE GLOBAL SERVICE GMBH (Appellants) V

ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS &

DESIGN AND THE EXAMINER OF PATENTS (Respondents)

CITATION- OA/22/2009/PT/DEL and Miscellaneous Petition No. 118/2012 in OA/22/2009/PT/DEL

HON’BLE JUDGES/CORAM:

Prabha Sridevan, J. (Chairman) and D.P.S. Parmar, Member (T)

Bibliographic Details:

Patent Application number 01398/DELNP/2003
Title Distributed Development Environment For Building Internet Applications By Developers At Remote Locations.
Applicant Accenture global services limited
Date of filing 01/09/2003
Date of publication of application 27/05/2005
Date of First Examination  Report 29/01/2008
Matter coming to IPAB 26/09/2012

As focus of the article is on section 3 (k), it has been reproduced below. For those who are new to this topic, section 3 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 bars patent eligibility of some inventions.

Section 3 (k):

A mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms

The appellants filed a PCT National phase application No. 01398/DELNP/2003 dated 01/09/2003 with 22 claims based on a PCT application No. PCT/US02/04964. On 03.02.2004 Form 13 was filed and claims were suo moto reduced to 18 and claims 19-22 were deleted.

In the First Examination Report (FER) dated 29/01/2008, based on the amended claims following objections, Inter-alia, were raised:-

  1. Claims 1-18 are not patentable in light of certain prior arts (US 5907704, US 6145119, US 5911075, US 5966535 and US 6014666).
  1. Claims in essence fall within the sense of section 3(k) of the Patent Act, 1970 (as amended).

During the hearing, the appellants submitted revised set of the claims, a new Claim 19 was also added without seeking amendment under section 57 and principle claim 1 is amended.

Appellant alleged that respondent’s order issued is influenced by incorrect facts and without application of mind and should be subjected to correction as Respondent indicated in the impugned order that the method claims were deleted by the Applicant only after raising of the objection by the Patent Office and have therefore on their own concluded that the objections raised by the Patent Office were correct and valid.  Appellant indicated fact that the method claims had been deleted from the present set of claims even before the filing a request for examination and only system claims were examined by the Examiner.

In the appeal it was found that allegations of appellant were true and board found it sufficient to say that the respondent has not applied his mind based on the existing facts.

Appellant alleged that ‘Applicable Standards’ relied on by the respondent to refuse the patent are neither mentioned in the Indian Patent Act nor in the Patent Office Manual or in guidelines by the Indian Courts in such matters.

Respondent had relied on below standards:

“1. A hardware implementation performing a novel function is not patentable if that particular hardware is known or is obvious irrespective of the function performed.

  1. If the novel features of the invention resides in a set of instructions (programme) designed to cause the hardware to perform the desired operations without special adoption of the hardware or modification of the hardware, then the matter claimed either alone or in combination is not patentable.”

IPAB agreed to such allegations.

IPAB also observed that passing the impugned order without giving appellant opportunity to amend the claims caused violation of the principle of natural justice and it is unsustainable in law.

Court did not go into the details of the merit of the case, even though appellant had submitted the argument relating to the merits, as it remanded the case back to the respondent.

Later, when invention was analyzed on merits, Indian Patent Office passed an order on May 10, 2013 to grant the application with below observation:

‘the invention as claimed is not software per se but , a system is claimed which is having the improvement in web services and software. the invention since not falling in the category of section 3(K), viz software per se , objection is waived and patent is granted’

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010