- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Sanjeev Narula
- Outcome
- Allowed
Headnote
Appeal allowed, the refusal under section 3(k) set aside and the application remanded for examination on novelty and inventive step. An invention is not a computer programme per se merely because it is implemented as algorithms and computer-executable instructions on a general purpose computing device. What matters is whether it delivers a technical effect or contribution. The claimed two-cookie authentication, one for the network location and another for the sub-location, improved security against cookie theft and so cleared section 3(k). The Patent Office's argument that the invention was at user-interface level was rejected both because it did not appear in the impugned order and because the technical contribution went deeper than the interface. The judgment closes with a postscript urging the Patent Office to assess computer related inventions on technical advancement rather than on the presence of algorithms.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.