- Case number
- C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 140/2022
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Sanjeev Narula
- Outcome
- Set aside
Headnote
Allowed and the refusal under section 3(k) quashed. The court held that a computer programme may qualify for patent protection where it shows a technical contribution to the field or delivers a discernible technical effect, and that the Controller had wrongly assumed that the absence of novel hardware renders a computer programme inherently unpatentable. The 2017 CRI Guidelines do not make dependency on novel hardware mandatory; what matters is technical advancement and technical contribution beyond a generic computer program.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.