Delhi High Court: An application was filed challenging the refusal of Indian Patent Application for the ‘PORTABLE VEHICLE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM’ (‘subject patent application’) issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs on 27-12-2018 (‘the impugned order’), asserting that the subject patent does not meet the inventive step requirement as stipulated under Section of the (‘the Act’). Sanjeev Narula, J., held that the claimed invention lacks an inventive step, therefore, the patent office’s decision to reject the application under Section of the , is justified and should be upheld.
A patent application was filed by the applicant for a vehicle monitoring and tracking system aimed to secure protection for a system offering real-time monitoring, anomaly detection, and emergency response features for vehicle operations. However, the patent office rejected the application under Section of the on the grounds that the claimed invention lacked inventive step, as it did not represent a technical advancement over the prior arts D4 and D5. The applicant challenged this decision, arguing that their invention incorporated novel features not disclosed or suggested by the prior arts.
The applicant contended that their invention introduced novel elements such as portability, enhanced safety and privacy features, and real-time assistance through traffic data analysis. They argued that while certain aspects may be covered by the prior arts, the combination of features and the novelty of the overall system warranted patent protection.
The Court conducted a detailed comparison of the technical features claimed in the patent application with those outlined in the prior arts D4 and D5. It was observed that many features claimed by the applicant were already comprehensively covered by the disclosures in D4 and D5. The court analyzed each technical aspect, including real-time monitoring, anomaly detection, alert generation, emergency response, and integration of sensors.
The Court noted that D5 introduced the concept of portability, while D4 focused on fixed systems for vehicle monitoring. The features like anomaly detection, alert generation, and integration of sensors were found to be addressed by both prior arts. The Court considered the doctrine of non-obviousness, evaluating whether a person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of D4 and D5. The Court also observed that the shift from fixed to portable systems represented a natural evolution rather than a distinct inventive step.
Thus, the Court held that the claimed invention lacked an inventive step as the features claimed, including portability and real-time assistance, were already addressed by D5, and the combination of common features from D4 and D5 was considered obvious to a person skilled in the art. Thus, the rejection of the patent application was upheld under Section of the .
Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the patent office’s decision emphasizing that the claimed invention did not overcome any significant technical hurdles not already addressed in the prior arts.
[Mahesh Gupta v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Design, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 328/2022, decided on 29-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Abhishek Jan and Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate for appellant
Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday, Mr. Lakshay Gunawat and Mr. Krishnan V., Advocates for defendants
The post appeared first on .