- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Prathiba M. Singh
- Outcome
- Disposed of
Headnote
Appeal dismissed and the refusal under section 3(k) upheld. The Court held that where an invention relates purely to a set of instructions or policies determining the flow of data, without any substantial change in hardware, it is not patentable even though it bears on how data flows; but where algorithmic instructions are implemented through software coded for the purpose and produce a technical effect or contribution, the test applicable to computer software applies and the inventive feature must be the implementation rather than the algorithm. Here the policy agent, communication policies and interoperating instructions amounted to conditional logic and procedural steps, so the technical contribution arose from the algorithm and nothing more. The Court added that the part of the Controller's order requiring inventive hardware features was not in accordance with law, and distinguished the EPO decision in Vicom because the qualifier as such for mathematical methods has no equivalent in India.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice.