ONE OF ITS KIND

Supreme Court of India in its civil appellate jurisdiction adjudicated on a Patent dispute titled J. Mitra & Co. Pvt. Ltd. versus Asst. Controller of Patents & Design. & Ors..

The Supreme Court granted the leave and directed the High Court to adjudicate the matter in interest of justice for only two appeals of such kind were pending in the High Courts. The special circumstances arises because of dichotomy introduced for the first time by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, in the Patent Law between "opposition to the pre-grant" and "opposition to the post-grant of patent" and “appeals against order passed by Controller of Patents under pre Grant or post grant opposition”.

It would be wise to state the brief facts of the matter in tabular form for better understating of the matter.

26.03.1999    Section 116 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 w.e.f. March 26, 1999 that provides for appeal to High Court against orders passed by the Controller of Patents. At that time only provision/remedy to oppose the grant of patent was pre grant opposition.

14.6.2000 J.Mitra & Company Pvt. Ltd. the appellant herein filed an application for grant of Patent

25.06.2002 Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 was promulgated by Legislature and to hear appeals against orders passed by the Controller Appellate Board established under Section 83 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was made the Appellate Board for the purposes of Patent Act (under Section 116) and under Section 117A provision was made that appeal against order of Controller under Section 25 (pre Grant Opposition) and other provisions shall lie only in the Appellant Board. But Section 116 and 117A were not notified and brought into force. Still at that time only provision to oppose the grant of patent was pre grant opposition under Section 25 and same brought into force vide Notification dated 20.5.2003.

20.11.2004 The application was notified by the Patent Office after scrutiny

                    Span Diagnostics Limited opposed the application under the provisions of Section 25 as stood then (Pre Grant Oppositon)

04.04.2005 The Legislature enacted the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 w.e.f. 01.101.2005 but not all provisions were simultaneously brought into force. Only certain sections of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 were brought into force. Provisions for Pre Grant as well as Post Grant Opposition were made. But Section 117A was amended and expression Section “25” was replaced with Section 25(4),effectively meaning that appeal shall lie against order passed under Section 25(4) i.e. order passed by Opposition Board in Post Grant Patent. The Legislature allowed appeals only against decision passed by the Controller in a Post Grant Opposition not pre Grant Opposition. Though the provisions of Section 25 were brought into effect, but the provisions of Section 116 and 117A were not brought into effect.

21.03.2005 Pre-grant opposition was filed under Section 25(1) of the Patent Act. It is to be noted that Patent (Amendment) Act, 2005 was enacted only after filing of this opposition on 04.04.2005 but was brought into effect from 01.01.2005. Therefore only provision available for opposition on such date was under the Patent (Amendment) Act, 2002.

23.08.2006 Pre Grant Opposition was rejected by the Controller of Patents. And as the Section 116 and 117A was not enacted on such date only remedy was to file Appeal under the provisions of Section 116 of Patent (Amendment) Act, 2002 that provides for filing the appeal before the High Court.

22.09.2006 The patent was granted. From here contention of Appellant arises, that after grant of Patent

19.10.2006 Appeal filed before the High Court against the order passed by the Controller of Patents in the patent opposition being FAO no. 292/2006 & 293/2006.

02.04.2007 Provisions of Section 116 and 117A, brought into effect by notification by the Legislature

03.04.2007 Provisions of Section 117G, that called for transfer of all pending proceeding against any order or decision of Controller and all cases pertaining to revocation other than on a counter claim in a suit for infringement and rectification of register pending before any High Court to the Appellate Board was brought into effect by notification by the Legislature. The Appellate Board may proceed with the matter either de novo or from the stage it was so transferred.

In words of Hon’ble Supreme Court “This matter is a classic illustration of the confusion which has emerged on account of the postponement of in-part commencement of Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005.”

The enactment of Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, introduced for the first time a dichotomy in the Patent Law between “opposition to the pre-grant” and “opposition to the post-grant of patent” and also as to “appeal” that may be preferred against any orders that may be passed by the Controller of Patents in opposition proceedings. No doubt, the Amendment Act of 2005 brought major structural change in the Indian Patent Law as per India’s Obligation under WTO/GATT. As per the amendment the appeals against orders passed under the post-grant opposition by the Controller shall lie before the Appellate Board and not to the High Court. But the enabling provision i.e. Section 117A was not brought into force till April 2, 2007. Therefore, appeal if any has to be preferred before the High Court under Section 116 of the Patent (Amendment) Act, 1999.

Though the provisions for an appellate forum to hear appeals against order passed by the Controller of Patents were enacted by legislature in 2002, the Govt was not able to start functioning of the Appellate Tribunal till April 2007 and hence Section 116 and 117A were not brought into force.

The Legislature intended to provide for only one statutory appeal against order passed by the Controller that too in a Post Grant Opposition to the Appellate Board but by not bringing Amending Section 61 into force till April 02, 2007, appeals filed during the interregnum i.e. between 01.01.2005 to 01.04.2007, as in this case, became vulnerable and liable to be dismissed as misconceived as contended by the appellant before Supreme Court.

Supreme Court observed “quite often the commencement of an Act is postponed to some specific future date or to such date as the Appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. At times provision is made for appointment of different dates for coming into force of different parts of the same Act.”

“An Act cannot be said to commence or to be in force unless it is brought into operation by legislative enactment or by the exercise of authority by a delegate empowered to bring it into operation.”

The Court while applying the above tests to the present case found that for the first time a dichotomy was introduced in the Patent Law by providing vide Section 25(1) for “opposition to pre-grant” and vide Section 25 (2) for “opposition to post-grant” of paten under the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. Earlier, there was no “post-grant opposition” and the only provision of challenge was a “pre-grant” challenge under Section 25 (1). By Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, under Section 25(2) right is granted to an “aggrieved person” to challenge the patent even after its grant and the grounds of challenge are identical to Section 25(1) of the Act. Therefore giving a right after grant but limiting the right to only an “aggrieved person” and fixing the limitation period to one year after grant.

Though the Legislature further intended to limit the right to appeal only to post grant oppositions and obliterate appeal from “pre-grant proceedings” but the Executive did not bring the enacted law (Chapter XIX having provisions for appeals to the appellate board i.e. Section 116 and 117 A to H) into force vide a notification simultaneously along with other provisions of the Act especially Section 25 (1) and (2). As a result the chapter XIX containing amended Sections 116 and 117A(2) were not brought into force only on 2.4.07 (and 117G on 03.04.2007) whereas the concept of “Pre grant” and “Post-grant” oppositions were already brought into force w.e.f.1.1.2005. In words of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

“This is where the legislative intent got defeated during the interregnum.”

During that period only the Respondent filed appeals against the orders rejecting the Pre Grant Oppositions by Controller of Patents being FAO No. 292/06 and 293/06 before the High Court under Section 116 of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 , as it stood on date of filing of appeal i.e. October 19,2006”. On the date of filing of appeal, the amended Section 117A, suggested by Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005, was not brought into force, therefore, the Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 prevailed under which an appeal lay before the High Court.

The Supreme Court held “Taking into account the complexities involved in this case, on account of a hiatus created by reason of the law not being brought into force in time, we are of the view that the first appeals, filed by respondent no.3 in the High Court being FAO No.292/06 and FAO No.293/06, would remain in the High Court. The said appeals would be heard and disposed of by the High Court in accordance with law under Section 116 of the said 1970 Act as it stood on 19.10.06. The High Court will hear and decide the validity of the Order passed by the Controller dated 23.8.06 rejecting “pre-grant opposition” filed by respondent no.3. We are informed that there are hardly one or two matters of this nature which are pending.

Therefore, we are of the view that respondent no.3 cannot be let without remedy. In the special circumstances of this case, particularly when after 2.4.07 appeals against orders rejecting “pre-grant opposition” are not maintainable and particularly when FAO No.292/06 and FAO No.293/06 were filed by respondent no.3 prior to 2.4.07 under the old law, we are of the view that these two appeals shall be heard and decided by the High Court in accordance with law. The Appellate Board after 2.4.07 is entitled to hear appeals only arising from orders passed by the Controller under Section 25(4), i.e., in cases of orders passed in “post-grant opposition”. Therefore, there is no point in transferring the pending FAO No.292/06 and FAO No.293/06 to the Appellate Board which has no authority to decide matters concerning “pre-grant opposition”. Moreover, it may be noted that even Section 117G, which refers to transfer of pending proceedings to the Appellate Board, is also brought into force vide Notification dated 3.4.07. Keeping in mind the peculiar nature of the problem in hand, we are of the view that ends of justice would be subserved if the High Court is directed to hear and decide the appeals bearing FAO No.292/06 and FAO No.293/06 in accordance with law as it then stood, i.e., under Section 116 under Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 against Orders passed by the Controller in “pre-grant opposition” proceedings.

The Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897 clarified the position of law and intent:

6. Effect of repeal.- Where this Act , or any Act made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not—

....

c). affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or

The provision along with ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in GSK case concerning the Exclusive marketing rights (GSK Case)  made amply clear that where any enactment is repealed, it shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed, unless, a different intention appears.

Applying the same ratio in the present matter, though the rights were accrued to respondent before the provisions of Section 116 as envisaged under Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was enacted, but the provisions of Section 117A made very clear that intention of legislature is different i.e. no appeal shall lie against any order passed by Controller of Patents in Pre Grant Oppositions.

The pendency of only very few such appeals against pre grant orders during the interregnum made the Hon’ble Supreme Court to keep the matter with the High Court. Otherwise, the interpretation of “appealable orders” under 117A read with 117G might have settled the position of law as to what about the provisions against which right to appeal is taken away subsequently.

COMPUTER SOFTWARE & BUSINESS METHOD PATENTS IN INDIA

COMPUTER SOFTWARE & BUSINESS METHOD PATENTS IN INDIA


India like European Union does not allow patents for inventions related to mathematical or business method or computer programme “per se” or algorithms. The relevant provision under the Indian Patents Act reads as under:

CHAPTER II

INVENTIONS NOT PATENTABLE

3. What are not inventions.- the following are not inventions within the meaning of this act,--

(k) a mathematical or business method or computer programme per se or algorithms;

The Section makes it amply clear that algorithms are not patentable in India. Though as per the Indian Patent Act, mathematical method, business method or computer programme per se are not allowed. The draft patent manual defines how inventions pertaining to above should be handled by the Indian Examiners and lays down parameters under which such inventions shall be patentable in India.

The proposed patent manual defines computer implemented invention as any invention the performance of which involves the use of computer, computer network or other programmable apparatus, or an invention one or more features which are realized wholly or partially by means of a computer programme/ programmes. Further, patent manual defines Computer programmes as a set of instructions for controlling a sequence of operations of a data processing system which closely resembles a mathematical method. Computer programme may be expressed in various forms e.g., a series of verbal statements, a flowchart, an algorithm, or other coded form and maybe presented in a form suitable for direct entry into a particular computer, or may require transcription into a different format (computer language). It may merely be written on paper or recorded on some machine readable medium such as magnetic tape or disc or optically scanned record, or it maybe permanently recorded in a control store forming part of a computer.

Though proposed patent manual emphasises on disclosure of mode of operation for inventions involving apparatus and necessary sequence of steps for process related invention, yet it lays down categorically that a hardware implementation performing a novel function is not patentable if that particular hardware system is known or is obvious irrespective of the function performed. It manifests that for such kind of invention insertion of method steps in apparatus or some dependency shall be required to make them non-obvious.

The patent manual has also broadly categorised inventions related to computer/ computer programmes as below:

(a) Method/process;
(b) Apparatus/system; and
(c) Computer program product

METHOD/PROCESS:

Further to make the invention patentable in India, the method claim should clearly define the steps involved in carrying out the invention and should have a technical character. In other words, it should solve a technical problem. The claims should incorporate the details regarding the mode of the implementation of the invention via. hardware or software, for better clarity. The claim orienting towards a “process/method” should contain a hardware or machine limitation. Technical applicability of the software claimed as a process or method claim, is required to be defined in relation with the particular hardware components. Thus, the “software per se” is differentiated from the software having its technical application in the industry. Therefore, as per the patent manual, a claim directed to a technical process which process is carried out under the control of a programme (whether by means of hardware or software), cannot be regarded as relating to a computer programme as such.

An example is also cited in the proposed patent manual on what kind of claims shall be allowable.

“a method for processing seismic data, comprising the steps of collecting the time varying seismic detector output signals for a plurality of seismic sensors placed in a cable.”

“Here the signals are collected from a definite recited structure and hence allowable.”

What is significant here is that patent office is not emphasising on embedment of hardware components in the method claims, as the only condition for patentability of method claims, but requires it as a machine/hardware limitation. Therefore the essential of method claims are:

a) It should solve a technical problem;
b) It should incorporate the details regarding the mode of the implementation of the invention via. hardware or software, for better clarity; and
c) It should contain a hardware or machine limitation.

APPARATUS/SYSTEM:

As per the proposed patent manual the apparatus claim should clearly define the inventive constructional hardware features. This could act as a limitation, as ordinarily hardware or machine don’t involve novel or inventive constructional feature but are programmed to perform in a novel or inventive way. Further, it suggests that the claim for an apparatus should incorporate a “process limitation” for an apparatus, where “limitation” means defining the specific application and not the general application. As a general rule, a novel solution to a problem relating to the internal operations of a computer, although comprising a program or subroutine, will necessarily involve technological features of the computer hardware or the manner in which it operates and hence may be patentable.

An example is also cited as to what manner process limitation shall be inserted in the claim. For example, in a computer comprising means for storing signal data and a first resistor for storing data, the clause starting with “for” describes the function or process carried out by the apparatus, and form the part of “process limitation” here.

Therefore the essential of apparatus/system claims are:

a) It should clearly define the inventive constructional hardware features; and
b) It should incorporate a “process limitation” for an apparatus, where “limitation” means defining the specific application and not the general application.

COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT:

A careful interpretation and analysis of the provision makes it clear that it is computer programme per se that are not allowed as they are subject matter of copyright in India. The reason for not considering the software as patentable subject matter was to avoid duality of protection available to software. But subject matter of copyright can be only their literal presentation of software which includes coding decoding or algorithm form and more precisely it is their algorithms form that the Indian Patents Act does not consider the patentable subject matter.

The proposed patent manual considers the claims relating to software programme product as nothing but computer programme per se simply expressed on a computer readable storage medium and as such are not allowable. Therefore requires something tangible to bring them out of provisions of Section 3 (K) of the Indian Patents Act i.e. embedding of hardware components.

For example, if the new feature comprises a set of instructions (programme) designed to control a known computer to cause it to perform desired operations, without special adoption or modification of its hardware or organization, then no matter whether claimed as “a computer arranged to operate etc” or as “a method of operating a computer”, etc., is not patentable and hence excluded from patentability.

It creates an ambiguity as whether a patent shall be allowed where all criteria for method or process claims as required by patent office are met. The only distinction from the previous categories could be that in present category “mode of implementation of the invention” is not mentioned in the claim, which in any case should not change the very character of the invention.

Patent manual further clarifies that the claim might stipulate that the instructions were encoded in a particular way on a particular known medium but this would not affect the issue. e.g., A program to evaluate the value of PI or to find the square root of a number are held not allowable. However, an invention consisting of hardware along with software or computer program in order to perform the function of the hardware may be considered patentable. e.g., embedded systems.

Therefore, claims must have few hardware components as an essential part of the invention and some form of interdependence should be shown between the software and hardware components. Hence, claims relating to methods utilising computer programs for its operation are patentable, as long as they do not claim computer programs itself.

Therefore the essential of computer program product claims are:

a) Must involve hardware components;
b) Computer programmes should perform function of the hardware; and
c) There should be interdependence between the software and hardware components

BUSINESS METHOD:

In history of inventions relating to business methods filed in India, major reasons for negating the invention was lack of industrial application, which is one of the major condition to qualify as an invention and consideration whether same in non-patentable being business method may be considered only if the subject is first found to be invention.

Invention is defined under Section 2(1)(j) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 and reads as follow:-

“Invention” means a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application.”

In Melia's Application (BL O/153/92), where an application relating to a scheme for exchanging all or part of a prison sentence for corporal punishment was held to lack industrial applicability and also to be a method for doing business.

In John Lahiri Khan’s Application (BL O/356/06) a method for effecting introductions with a view to making friends was held not to be industrially applicable, even though it could be carried out by a commercial enterprise. It was also found to be non-patentable as a method of doing business.

“Capable of industrial application” is defined under Section 2(1)(ac) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 and reads as follow:-
“Capable of industrial application”, in relation to an invention, means that the invention is capable of being made or used in an industry.

In re: Bernard Bilski, US Federal Court of appeal in its judgement dated October 30, 2008 upheld that business methods cannot be patented. The court observed that the sole analysis for determining whether an invention is patentable should be the “machine-or- transformation test” i.e. requiring involvement of a machine (like in case of computer program product) or transforming an article (for details refer to case law).

Though there are no specific, guidelines in proposed draft manual as to how to treat inventions pertaining to business methods, the requirements for patentability as in case of computer programmes or mathematical methods becomes of great significance and could be relied.

Therefore the business method per se may not be patentable, but its technical implication can be a subject matter of patentable invention.

MATHEMATICAL METHOD:

A mathematical method is one which is carried out on numbers and provides a result in numerical form (the mathematical method or algorithm therefore being merely an abstract concept prescribing how to operate on the numbers) and not patentable. However, its application may be patentable if performed function is technical process and claim is directed to such technical process not the mathematical method.

Reference has been made to Vicom/Computer-related invention [1987] 1 OJEPO 14 (T208/84) wherein the invention concerned a mathematical method for manipulating data representing an image, leading to an enhanced digital image. Claims to a method of digitally filtering data performed on a conventional general purpose computer were rejected, since those claims were held to define an abstract concept not distinguished from a mathematical method. However, claims to a method of image processing which used the mathematical method to operate on numbers representing an image can be allowed. The reasoning was that the image processing performed was a technical (i.e. non- excluded) process which related to technical quality of the image and that a claim directed to a technical process in which the method used does not seek protection for the mathematical method as such. Therefore the allowable claims as such went beyond a mathematical method.

Therefore anyone interested in protecting an invention in India or for any part of the world has to more careful at the time of filing basic application (priority application). The specification as well as claims should be modified in pretext of above before filing of patent application or else the description must have sufficient support for modification of the claims to include hardware components. One of the safest criteria deployed by the Examiner to find whether any hardware features are involved in the invention is to require inclusion of reference numerals for hardware components in the description as well as claims.