fbpx

Huawei Technologies v Controller General, Artificial Intelligence and Right to Privacy, Drafting a Patent

The LexCampus Weekly Newsletter No. 11

17th March, 2021

Hi

This week we look at a judgement by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) where it decided an appeal against the Controller for rejecting a patent application on the basis of lack of inventive step. This week’s blogpost is regarding the rising concern amongst the public and scholars alike, regarding AI and its disruptive effect on the right to privacy of individuals, particularly users of the internet. We offer tips on drafting transitional clause in a patent and conclude with a patent related FAQ answered by Prof. Feroz Ali.

PATENT CASE SUMMARY

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v. Controller General of Patents & Designs, & Ors.

OA/20/2020/PT/CHN

Huawei Technologies’ submitted a patent application for a method and a device disclosing automatically produced vocabulary entries from specified inputs acoustic data. This application was rejected for lack of inventive step. In appeal, the Board not only reversed the decision but also came down heavily on the Controller for not adhering to the precedents of the Court which establish a definite procedure for the determination of inventive step in a patent. Read more

FROM OUR PATENT BLOG

Artificial Intelligence and the Right to Privacy

Working in close tandem with Big Data and Information and Communications Technology (ICT), AI today is one of the driving factors for the exponential growth in several sectors of the global economy. However, while AI has done wonders for time management and data processing, there has been an increasing expression of concern over the privacy of individuals who interact with AI on a daily basis. This article briefly describes how AI poses a threat to information privacy and personal liberty. Read more

DRAFTING A PATENT – TRANSITION

Last week, it was explained that the transition word “comprising” would render the claim “open”. However, despite this, the applicant may involuntarily and adversely limit the scope in the following manner:

  • The specifications maybe so drafted as to further mention what is excluded from the preamble.
  • The applicant may also negate the open-endedness by not claiming an alternative or different embodiment,
  • The applicant may have named a specific embodiment and presented it as the sole embodiment being claimed in the patent.

The above mistakes would lead to restricting the ambit of the patent and hence, should be avoided while making the transition from the preamble to further parts of the patent application.

PATENT Q&A

QUESTION: Whether there is a provision for the examiner to check on inventive step? It is not explicitly mentioned.

ANSWER: Yes, it is not explicitly mentioned. But in S.12, it is mentioned. If you see S.12 talks about anything requirements of this Act and the rules, so, everything will come under that. And it also talks about lawful grounds for objection. Lawful grounds for objection, obviousness could be a ground for objection. So, it is mentioned indirectly, but .. Read more and watch video explanation

That’s all folks for this week

Team LexCampus

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Want to Learn Patent Law?

The most in-depth online course in Patent Law in India at the most affordable price of just Rs.199 per month.

TESTIMONIALS

Firstly it changed the approach of looking at the subject. At the first instance bare act seemed dry. The lecture series actually explained 'why' of the topic and statutes. Which helped in understanding the way the things are .

Nachiket Galgali

To receive updates on Patent Case Laws, Patent Articles, Patent Q&A & more in your inbox, subscribe to our free newsletter.