Article
Meritorious win: Patentability of computer related inventions in India
By Gaurav Gupta
The article in this issue of IPR Amicus analyses an Order by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) on the issue of patent eligibility of computer-related inventions under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The Board promulgated that assessment of ‘technical effect’ produced by the invention is essential and just because a computer program is used for effectuating a part of the invention, it does not provide a bar to patentability. The IPAB also affirmed that the invention must be examined as whole and the ‘technical effect’ and the ‘technical contribution’ associated with the invention are the essential factors in deciding the patentability of computer-related inventions. The author notes that after many battles, including twice in the IPO, twice in the IPAB, and twice in the Delhi High Court, the applicant finally won the war and got a well-deserved relief. According to him, the decision also confirms the view that Indian IP jurisprudence is still developing and that interference by the Courts is not avoidable in all circumstances...
Statute Update
- Fees payable by educational institutions reduced – Patents Rules, 2003 amended
Ratio decidendi
- Designs – High Court has jurisdiction to try counter-claim for cancellation of registration of plaintiff – Madhya Pradesh High Court
- Designs – Publication on own website prior to registration fatal – Madhya Pradesh High Court
- Termination of trademark licences – Effect, when defendant a JV with 50% holding of plaintiff – Karnataka High Court
- Trademarks – Passing off by use of acronym ‘IIHM’ in respect of similar services – Calcutta High Court
News Nuggets
- Champagne as a service – Protection to product PDO also available where the disputed sign designates a service
- Basmati GI tag – Over-inclusion of areas of various States while leaving out 13 districts of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court sets aside Madras HC decision
- Exclusive copyright licence can be terminated by the original owner
- Trademark – Prior use of mark ‘Natural’
- Confusion between ‘KORSUVA’ and ‘AROSUVA’ fatal
