The Delhi High Court fined Google Rs 1 lakh.that’s why

The court noted that Google’s application was rejected for lack of inventive step. (representative)

New Delhi:

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed its appeal and fined Google Rs 1 lakh for stating wrong facts and failing to disclose information about the rejection of a patent by the European Patent Office (EPO).

Justice Prathiba M Singh dismissed Google’s appeal against the order of the Assistant Director of Patents and Designs rejecting its application.

Google has filed a patent application titled “Managing Instant Messaging Conversations on Multiple Devices.”

The High Court noted that Google’s application was rejected for lack of inventive step. However, Google claims that the application was abandoned before the EPO.

“Taking into account the fact that the submitted European Patent Office application was abandoned and that the corresponding EU application for the subject patent consisted of not one but two applications, including divisional applications, and that they were both rejected for lack of inventive step, In the present case, appeal costs are also likely to be levied,” Justice Singh said.

It added that “the appellant not only provided the court with incorrect facts in this appeal but also failed to disclose information regarding the rejection of the parent EU application and the subsequent divisional application.”

Google’s application was rejected by the Assistant Director of Patents and Designs for lack of inventive step.

It has challenged the order before the Intellectual Property Appeals Board (IPAB). Following the abolition of IPAB, appeals were transferred to the High Court.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, saying: “The Controller was correct in his opinion that the steps envisaged in this patent application lacked an inventive step and were obvious to a person skilled in the art.”

“The gist and essence of the above discussion is that, notwithstanding the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, the subject invention is not entitled to a patent in view of lack of inventive step. Therefore, the present appeal fails and the liability is dismissed,” the bench held.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)