Ranjan Narula and Suvarna Pandey of RNA Technology and IP Attorneys analyse the fiery ruling which declared ‘an order which contains reasons that no one can understand is worse than an unreasoned order’
The Working Statement which patentees need to file every year continues to be a controversial subject. The frequent changes in the forms and varying stands of the patent office have added to the confusion.
The Delhi High Court has clarified the patentability of a software or computer-related invention (CRI) while deciding a writ petition (W.P.(C) 7/2014) challenging the order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) which held that the invention lacks novelty and inventive step along with the technical requirements needed under Section 3(k). The IPAB in this case had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner (i.e. patentee) challenging the order of the Patent Office refusing the patent application on the basis of the invention lacking novelty and inventive step and patentability under Section 2(1)(j) and 3(k) respectively of the Patent Act.