The European Patent Office had rejected Google's patent, and the court determined that Google had withheld this information.

Google's appeal against the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs' decision to deny the tech giant's request for the issuance of a patent titled "Managing Instant Messaging Sessions on Multiple Devices" was denied by the Delhi High Court on Tuesday [Google LLC v. The Controller of Patents].

Judge Prathiba M. Singh fined Google ₹1 lakh for misrepresenting the facts and for withholding information about the European Patent Office's (EPO) rejection of a patent.

The record indicated that Google's patent application was denied for lack of innovative steps, notwithstanding the company's statement to the court that it had been abandoned before the EPO.

"In the current appeal proceedings, costs may also be imposed in light of the submission that the EPO application was abandoned and the fact that the corresponding EU application for the patent in question consisted of two applications, one of which was a divisional application, and both of which were denied due to a lack of inventive step. In the current appeal, the appellant not only misrepresented the facts to the court, but also omitted information about the divisional application that was submitted as a result of the EU parent application's rejection, the court noted.

The patent that was being reviewed aimed to give customers the ability to carry on conversations on several devices by allowing them to move instant messaging sessions between them simultaneously.

Users can also specify whether they want their instant messaging sessions to be mirrored or copied when they are not actively using the messaging app, like when they are at work or on vacation.



Under Section 15 of the Patens Act, the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs denied Google's application for this patent due to a lack of inventive step and originality.

The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) heard a challenge to the order from the firm. The case was moved to the Delhi High Court following the IPAB's dissolution.

Justice Singh came to the conclusion that the Controller of Patents was correct to find that a person with a reasonable competence in the art could readily see that the steps considered in Google's patent application lacked innovative step.

The main point of the discussion above is that, in spite of the appellant's submissions, the subject invention is not eligible for patent issuance due to a lack of inventive steps. As a result, the Court decided that the current appeal is not tenable and could be dismissed.

The Court also expressed gratitude to Deputy Controller Neeraj Tayal for his assistance in reaching a decision.