The Delhi High Court on Tuesday while
dismissing its appeal imposed a fine of Rs one lakh on Google for representing
wrong facts and for its failure to disclose the information regarding the
refusal of the patent by the European Patent Office (EPO).
Justice Prathiba M Singh dismissed the
appeal filed by Google against the order of Assistant Controller of Patent and
Design rejecting its application.
Google had moved an application for a
grant of a patent titled "Managing Instant Messaging Sessions on multiple
devices."
The High Court noted that Google's
application was dismissed due to a lack of inventive steps. However, Google
claimed that the application was abandoned before EPO.
"Considering the submission made
that the EPO application was abandoned and coupled with the fact that the
corresponding EU application for the subject patent comprised of not one but
two applications, including a divisional application, and that they both were
rejected for lack of inventive step, in the present appeal costs are also
liable to be imposed," Justice Singh said.
It further said, "The Appellant
in the present appeal not only presented wrong facts to the Court but also
failed to disclose the information regarding the refusal of the EU parent
application as also of the divisional application which was filed
consequently."
Google's application was rejected by
the Assistant Controller of Patent and Design for lack of inventive steps.
It had challenged the order before the
Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The appeal was transferred to the
High Court after the abolition of IPAB.
The High Court dismissed the appeal
and said, "The Controller 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
above discussion is that despite the submissions made on behalf of the
Appellant, the subject invention is not entitled to grant of a patent given the
lack of inventive step. Thus, the present appeal is not tenable and is liable
to be dismissed," the bench held.