Madras High Court: In an appeal under Section 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970 (“Patents Act”), a Single Judge Bench of N. Senthilkumar, J., upheld the Controller of Patents’ order dismissing a post-grant opposition to Flipkart’s patent. The Court held that the Controller’s decision was well reasoned and free from infirmity, emphasising the detailed comparative analysis undertaken between the cited prior art and the characterised features of the invention. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the validity of Flipkart’s patent stood affirmed.
Background:
The invention concerned “Systems and Methods for Virtual Agents to Help Customers and Business,” filed in 2016 and granted in 2019 following amendments that reduced the claims. The invention aimed to optimize product selection and execution of user actions, thereby improving user experience and reducing time and effort.
A post-grant opposition was filed alleging lack of novelty, inventive step, non-patentability under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, insufficient description, and non-compliance with disclosure requirements. The appellant argued that the Controller disregarded relevant materials, failed to provide reasoning, misapplied the test of novelty and inventive step, and violated principles of natural justice. It was contended that features such as “association of tags” and “display of output page” amounted to negative claiming and lacked technical contribution.
Flipkart, defending the patent, submitted that the Controller’s findings were well reasoned, supported by comparative analysis, and consistent with established principles of patent law. It was argued that the invention demonstrated technical contribution, industrial applicability, and compliance with statutory requirements.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that the entire case of Flipkart rested on the ground of lack of novelty and inventive features in the invention of the patentee. The Court highlighted the principle that anticipation requires prior publication to contain the whole of the invention impugned, citing Farbwerke Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft Vormals Meister Lucius & Bruning v. Unichem Laboratories, 1968 SCC OnLine Bom 118.
The Court noted that the Controller had analysed prior art documents and compared them with the characterised features of the patentee’s invention. It was observed that these features included storing correlation between a plurality of actions such as search, sort, select, submit, and compare; associating actions with tags; executing actions based on desired input and correlation; and finally, displaying an output page to the user. The Court observed that these sequential steps were absent in the cited prior art, thereby establishing novelty and supporting the Controller’s conclusion in favour of the patentee.
The Court further noted that insofar as the ground of objection under Section 25(2)(d) of the Patents Act was concerned, the Controller had observed that although Flipkart sought to take such a ground by comparing the subject matter with Apple’s SIRI, no technical comparison was made, and therefore that ground was moot.
Highlighting that the characterised portion of claim showed sequential steps which were technical in nature and therefore did not fall within the ambit of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, the Court observed that the amendments made to the patentee’s claims were in line with office requirements and supported by description and illustrations, proving industrial applicability.
The Court underscored that sufficient opportunity had been given to both sides, with submissions and evidence duly considered. It was concluded that the Controller had made a detailed analysis of all claims and objections, and the impugned order rejecting Flipkart’s opposition was well reasoned.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, holding that no interference was warranted.
[Flipkart Internet (P) Ltd. v. Controller of Patents and Designs, CMA (PT) No. 9 of 2024, decided on 05-01-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Sneha Jain for Madhan Babu
For the Respondent: Subburanga Bharathi, Central Govt. Counsel, Ramesh Ganapathy