Delhi High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Fine on Google Over Patent Application Dispute

GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 3rd April. The Delhi High Court, on Tuesday, dealt a blow to tech giant Google by imposing a hefty fine of ₹1 lakh while dismissing its appeal. The fine was levied due to Google’s alleged misrepresentation of facts and failure to disclose crucial information regarding the rejection of its patent application by the European Patent Office (EPO).

Justice Prathiba M Singh presiding over the case dismissed Google’s appeal against the order of the Assistant Controller of Patent and Design, which had rejected Google’s patent application.

The patent in question was titled “Managing Instant Messaging Sessions on multiple devices.” The High Court observed that Google’s application was turned down by the Assistant Controller due to a perceived lack of inventive steps. Despite this, Google purportedly claimed that the application was abandoned before the EPO.

Justice Singh remarked, “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 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.”

The court further criticized Google for presenting incorrect facts and withholding pertinent information regarding the rejection of the EU parent application and its divisional counterpart.

Google’s application had initially been rejected by the Assistant Controller of Patent and Design for failing to demonstrate inventive steps. Subsequently, Google challenged this decision before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which was later dissolved, leading to the transfer of the appeal to the High Court.

In its ruling, the High Court concurred with the Assistant Controller’s assessment, affirming that the proposed step outlined in Google’s patent application lacked inventive merit and was deemed obvious to individuals skilled in the relevant field.

In conclusion, the bench stated, “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.”