Madras High Court: In a transfer civil miscellaneous appeal filed under Sections 15 and 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970, against the order passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs, wherein the Controller refused to grant patent to an invention titled “For selectively concealing physical address information”, by referring to Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 and concluding that the claimed invention is a business method, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J. while setting aside the impugned order, remanded for re-consideration, and held that the invention, while potentially applicable in a business context, was primarily related to a technical process involving hardware and software for data privacy. Thus, it is not a business method per se.
The Court referred to Section 3(k) and noted that it deals with four types of patent claims, mathematical method; business method; computer programme per se; and algorithms.
Further, it said that the CRI Guidelines which provide guidance with regard to business method should not be construed as providing an authoritative interpretation of Section 3(k). It indicates that a claim would be construed as a business method if the claim is, in substance, for a business method.
After examining the appellant’s claims, especially independent claim 1, the Court said that claims are directed at concealing the physical address of the purchaser of goods in e-commerce transactions by deploying software, hardware and firmware for such purpose. It is possible that the conduct of e-commerce in this manner may be part of the business method of an enterprise if the claimed invention were to be used, the monopoly claim is not in respect of a business method but in respect of a claimed invention deploying hardware, software and firmware for purposes of data privacy and protection. Therefore, as per the Court, the conclusion that the claimed invention relates to a business method is untenable.
The Court while setting aside the impugned order, remanded for re-consideration on the following terms:
- To preclude the possibility of pre-determination, an officer other than the officer who issued the impugned order shall undertake such re-consideration.
-
After providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant, a reasoned decision shall be issued within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
[Priya Randolph v Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 7890, decided on 20-12-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant: Advocate Ramesh Ganapathy
For Respondent: Advocate P.R. Ramesh Babu
Buy Patents Act, 1970 HERE
