Achi news desk-
GUWAHATI: The Delhi High Court has imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on Google and dismissed its appeal on Tuesday.
This decision came after Google did not disclose information regarding the refusal of the patent by the European Patent Office (EPO), and that it was reported to represent incorrect facts.
Also Read: Indian Weightlifter Bindyarani Devi Gets Bronze at IWF World Cup 2024
According to reports, Judge Prathiba M. Singh dismissed Google’s appeal of the order of the Assistant Inspector General of Patents and Design, which had earlier rejected its patent application. Google has applied for a patent with the title "Manage sessions of instant messages on multiple devices."
Click here to join our WhatsApp channel
The High Court noted that Google’s application was rejected due to the lack of inventive steps. Despite Google’s claim that the application was abandoned before the EPO, the court found that the corresponding EU patent application was rejected by the EPO, including a divisional application.
Justice Singh noted, "Considering the claim submitted that the EPO application was abandoned and together with the fact that the corresponding EU application for the subject patent included not one but two applications, including a divisional application, and both were rejected for lack of inventive step, b. The costs of the current appeal are also expected to be imposed."
The court criticized Google for misrepresenting the facts and not disclosing the information regarding the rejection of both the EU’s parent application and the divisional application, according to reports.
Google’s application was initially rejected by the Assistant Comptroller of Patents and Design for lack of inventive step. Google then appealed this decision to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which was later overturned, leading to the appeal being taken to the Supreme Court, according to reports.
The High Court of Justice confirmed the auditor’s decision, and emphasized that the invention lacks inventive steps and is obvious to a person knowledgeable in the field. The court came to the conclusion, "The invention in question is not eligible for a patent in the absence of inventiveness. Therefore, the present appeal is not sustainable and should be dismissed."
