Google – Patent “Managing Instant Messaging Sessions on Multiple Devices – Lack of inventive step – Not entitled to grant of patent – Google had presented wrong facts and also failed to disclose information
Google LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company (LLC) incorporated under the laws of USA located at Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California, 94032 and Assignee of the subject patent application by virtue of an assignment between the original applicant AOL LLC and Google LLC
Google filed application on 13.7.2007 before the Indian Patent Office as PCT National Phase application claiming priority (date of 30.12.2004) from a US Patent Application. Order dated 27.11.2019 of the Controller of Patents rejected the application dated 13.7.2007 of Google LLC for grant of a patent
Appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, was filed.
HELD that in the analysis, the comparison of the subject patent application to the prior art D1 clearly establishes the lack of inventive step. In the opinion of he Court, by applying any of the settled tests, the Controller of Patents 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 discussion in the judgment, the subject invention is not entitled for grant of a patent in view of lack of inventive step.
On the conduct of the appellant Google, it was found that the submission of the appellant that the corresponding EU application of the subject patent was abandoned and not rejected by EPO. However, the Controller found that the corresponding subject patent application was in fact rejected by EPO. Google not only presented wrong facts but also failed to disclose information regarding refusal of the EU patent application as also divisional application filed consequently. Thus, the disclosure requirements under the Act are not complied with. Rs.1 lakh costs was imposed on Google.
Judgment dated 2.4.2024 in C.A.(Comm.IPD-PAT) No.395 of 2022 of Google LC Vs. The Controller of Patents
