In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court revisited the issue of divisional patent applications rejected under Section 3(k) of the Indian Patent Act, which excludes “computer programs per se” from patentability. The case, AB Initio v. Assistant Controller, reaffirms the court’s evolving interpretation of Section 3(k) and its implications for computer-related inventions. The court, in this instance, applied the ‘technical effect’ test to determine whether the invention in question could be granted a patent, despite the initial rejection by the Patent Office.
Background and Legal Issues
The controversy cantered around two divisional applications, 6500/DELNP/2011 and 6501/DELNP/2011, which outlined a method and system for data processing. These applications were rejected by the Patent Office on the grounds that they fell under the unpatentable category of “computer programs per se” as defined in Section 3(k) of the Patent Act. The inventions aimed to improve data processing by analyzing previously stored data sets with unknown characteristics, thereby reducing the computational resources typically required for functional dependency analysis.
The proposed system used a profiling module to read records, compute statistics, and gather descriptive information, which was then stored in a metadata repository for future analysis. The applicants argued that this system provided significant improvements in processing speed and efficiency, thereby qualifying as a technical effect that should allow the invention to be patentable.
Court’s Analysis of ‘Technical Effect’
The Delhi High Court, in its judgment, focused on the concept of ‘technical effect,’ a critical factor in determining the patentability of computer-related inventions. The court has previously utilized various criteria to assess whether an invention produces a technical effect, such as whether it solves a technical problem or contributes to technical advancement. In this case, the court defined a ‘technical effect’ as an innovation that enhances the computational capabilities of a processor, resulting in faster or more efficient operations.
The court identified several aspects of the invention that indicated a technical effect:
1. Increased speed in functional dependency analysis.
2. Efficient use of computational resources by processing only necessary data rather than entire data sets.
3. Data profiling without duplication, enhancing storage efficiency by using a metadata store.
4. Parallel processing capabilities that improve data handling efficiency.
5. Use of a specialized programmable computer for data processing tasks.
Based on these factors, the court concluded that the invention produced a technical effect, thereby surpassing the exclusion criteria under Section 3(k).
Reliance on the 2013 CRI Guidelines
In determining the presence of a technical effect, the court referred to the 2013 Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions (CRI), despite these guidelines being replaced by the 2017 version. The 2013 guidelines suggested that improvements such as increased processing speed, efficient memory use, and better user interfaces could demonstrate a technical effect. Although the 2017 guidelines do not explicitly mention ‘technical effect,’ focusing instead on technical advancements, the court found the principles in the 2013 guidelines relevant for this case.
In the Ferid Allani case, the court observed that the term ‘technical effect’ was not included in the CRI guidelines post-2013. However, the court still applied the ‘technical effect’ test, reasoning that its meaning has been well-established through previous court decisions and patent office practices. Additionally, other rulings by the Delhi High Court have similarly upheld the application of the ‘technical effect’ test.
This reliance on outdated guidelines, however, raises concerns about the consistency of judicial interpretations. The court’s decision to apply principles from the 2013 guidelines, even though they were superseded, reflects a broader challenge in the dynamic field of patent law where technological advancements often outpace legal frameworks.
Ongoing Debate on Section 3(k)
The ruling adds to the ongoing debate about how Section 3(k) should be interpreted, particularly in the context of digital innovation. There is a concern that a strict interpretation of Section 3(k) could hinder innovation in the software industry, as many technological advancements are inherently software-based. On the other hand, allowing software-related inventions to be patented could dilute the purpose of Section 3(k), potentially leading to monopolization of ideas that should remain in the public domain.
The Delhi High Court, in this case, leaned towards a more liberal interpretation, aligning with the view that a restrictive reading of Section 3(k) would stifle innovation. This approach is consistent with the broader trend in Indian courts to interpret what constitutes a technical effect more expansively, thus broadening the scope of what can be considered patentable.
Remanding the Application
Contrasting with a previous ruling by the Madras High Court in Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC, where a patent was granted without addressing the issue of enablement under Section 3(k), the Delhi High Court chose to remand the application back to the Controller for further examination of the inventive step as required under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patent Act. This decision highlights the importance of considering all aspects of patentability, including the inventive step and enablement, alongside Section 3(k).
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision in AB Initio v. Assistant Controller underscores the complexities of patenting computer-related inventions under Indian law. By applying the technical effect test and relying on principles from the 2013 CRI guidelines, the court has once again highlighted the ongoing challenges in balancing the need for innovation with the legal framework governing patents. This ruling will likely influence future cases involving the patentability of software-based inventions and continue to shape the interpretation of Section 3(k).
Link : https://www.linkedin.com/company/kumar-sardana-associates-ksa
