New Delhi: The Delhi High Court while dismissing its appeal imposed a fine of Rs one lakh on Google for representing wrong facts and for its failure to disclose the information regarding the refusal of the patent by the European Patent Office (EPO).
Justice Prathiba M Singh dismissed the appeal filed by Google against the order of Assistant Controller of Patent and Design rejecting its application. Google had moved an application for a grant of a patent titled "Managing Instant Messaging Sessions on multiple devices.
The High Court noted that Google's application was dismissed due to a lack of inventive steps. However, Google claimed that the application was abandoned before EPO. "Considering the submission made that the EPO application was abandoned and coupled with the fact that the corresponding EU application for the subject patent comprised of not one but two applications, including a divisional application, and that they both were rejected for lack of inventive step, in the present appeal costs are also liable to be imposed," Justice Singh said.
It further said, "The Appellant in the present appeal not only presented wrong facts to the Court but also failed to disclose the information regarding the refusal of the EU parent application as also of the divisional application which was filed consequently."
Google's application was rejected by the Assistant Controller of Patent and Design for lack of inventive steps. It had challenged the order before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The appeal was transferred to the High Court after the abolition of IPAB.
The High Court dismissed the appeal and said, "The Controller is right when he holds that the step contemplated in the subject patent application lacks inventive step and is obvious to a person skilled in the art."
"The sum and substance of the above discussion is that despite the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant, the subject invention is not entitled to grant of a patent given the lack of inventive step. Thus, the present appeal is not tenable and is liable to be dismissed," the bench held.
