CASE BRIEF: Microsoft Technology Licensing v. Asst. Controller of Patents and Designs and Raytheon Company v. Controller General of Patents and Designs

 

Citation	CA(COMM.IPD-PAT) 29/2022.
Court	Delhi High court
Bench	Sanjeev Narula
Appellant	Microsoft Technology Licensing
Respondent	Asst. Controller of Patents and Designs and Raytheon Company v. Controller General of Patents and Designs

Introduction 

The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Microsoft Technology Licensing vs Assistant Controller of Patents (2023) addresses a crucial question in Indian patent law: the interpretation of “computer program per se” under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The case emerged from Microsoft’s patent application for an invention related to methods and systems for user authentication across sub-locations of a network location.

 

Microsoft filed the patent application (No. 1373/DEL/2003) in November 2003 for a two-tier authentication system using cookies. The Patent Office initially raised objections through a First Examination Report in 2016, citing concerns about novelty, inventive steps, and non-patentability under Section 3(k). After a hearing in 2019, the Controller rejected Microsoft’s application, primarily finding the invention to be a non-patentable “computer program per se.”

 

The core technical contribution of Microsoft’s invention was a security enhancement mechanism that used two different cookies for authentication – one for the network location and another for sub-locations. This approach was designed to prevent unauthorized access even if a malicious user managed to steal authentication cookies, as they would only gain access to specific sub-locations rather than the entire network.

 

The case presented an opportunity for the Delhi High Court to clarify the scope of Section 3(k) and its interpretation, particularly the meaning of “per se” in relation to computer programs. The Court’s analysis delved deep into the legislative history of the provision, including various amendments and parliamentary discussions that shaped its current form.

 

The judgment becomes particularly significant as it addresses the broader challenge faced by the Indian Patent Office in consistently evaluating computer-related inventions (CRIs). It highlights the need to look beyond the mere presence of algorithms or computer programs and instead focus on the technical effect and contribution of the invention to determine its patentability.

 

By examining this case, we get insight into how Indian patent law is evolving to balance the protection of genuine technological innovations while preventing the monopolization of basic computer programs. The Court’s analysis provides important guidance for future examination of CRI patent applications and emphasizes the need for clear examination guidelines in this rapidly evolving technological landscape.

 

Facts of the case 

Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC filed an Indian Patent Application (No. 1373/DEL/2003) on November 7, 2003, seeking registration for an invention titled “Methods and Systems for Authentication of a User for Sub-locations of a Network Location.” The invention related to a security enhancement system for network authentication.

 

The Patent Office issued its First Examination Report on April 27, 2016, raising three primary objections: lack of novelty in view of cited prior arts, lack of inventive steps in view of cited prior arts, and non-patentability under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act (computer program per se). This was followed by a Hearing Notice dated February 20, 2019, which raised substantive objections about lack of novelty and inventive steps, non-patentability under Section 3(k), and lack of clarity regarding the scope of the claimed invention.

 

The technical problem that Microsoft’s invention sought to address was a security risk in conventional authentication systems. In traditional systems, when cookies were used to authenticate users for both network locations and sub-locations, malicious users could potentially steal these cookies and impersonate legitimate users to gain unauthorized access to sub-locations within the network location. This could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive personal, financial, or other confidential information.

 

Microsoft’s invention proposed a solution through a two-tier authentication system using different cookies. The first cookie would authenticate the user for the network location, while a second cookie would be generated for authenticated users for specific sub-locations. Even if both cookies were stolen, a malicious user would only gain access to specific sub-locations rather than the entire network, thereby limiting potential security breaches.

 

After reviewing Microsoft’s application and hearing arguments, the Controller issued an order on April 11, 2019, rejecting the application under Section 15 of the Patents Act. The Controller concluded that the invention was merely a set of computer executable instructions or algorithms, constituting a “computer program per se.” The Controller held that Claims 1-28 were related to a computer program per se and fell under Section 3(k) of the Act.

 

The Controller’s order specifically noted that the method of utilizing cookies and memory to identify network address locations indicated that the “inventive step” was rooted in non-patentable subject matter. The Controller viewed the invention as simply an implementation of computer executable instructions/algorithms on a general purpose computing device to achieve intended functional features.

 

Microsoft challenged this rejection before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the Controller had incorrectly interpreted Section 3(k) and failed to provide sufficient reasoning for the conclusion. They contended that their invention provided technical contribution through improved security of existing computer and computer networks, and therefore deserved patent protection.

 

Arguments by the parties 

Arguments by Microsoft (Petitioner):

Microsoft, through counsel Ms. Vindhya S. Mani, argued that the Controller’s order was non-speaking and unreasoned, thus violating principles of natural justice. They contended that Section 3(k) of the Patents Act had been wrongly interpreted in concluding that Claims 1-28 related to an algorithm implemented by a computer program per se. Microsoft emphasized that the legislature’s addition of “per se” did not mean computer programs should be entirely excluded from patent protection.

 

The petitioner argued that their invention provided significant technical contribution through improved security of existing computer and computer networks. They emphasized that the Patent Office had disregarded important decisions of the Delhi High Court in cases like Ferid Allani v. Union of India and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intex Technologies (India) Ltd.

 

Microsoft maintained that their claims, when taken as a whole, related to a technical process that solved a technical problem and provided technical advancement in data security. They argued that the contribution of their claimed invention did not lie solely in the excluded subject matter but rather in the combination of software with hardware components.

 

Arguments by the Patent Office (Respondent):

Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, representing the Patent Office, defended the rejection by arguing that patent rights are territorial in nature, and patentability of computer programs in India differs from other developed countries. He contended that Microsoft failed to appreciate the legislative intent behind Section 3(k)’s introduction to the Act.

 

The respondent argued that the Controller had passed a reasoned order and rightfully rejected the patent application. They maintained that the claimed invention was merely an “algorithm” – a set of rules to solve a problem. They argued that since these instructions were being implemented on a computer program per se, the invention was non-patentable.

 

The Patent Office further contended that Microsoft’s invention operated only at the user-interface level and merely enhanced user experience/efficiency without providing any technical effect or contribution to the hardware/computer system itself. They argued that reliance on statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements from the European Union and United Kingdom was misplaced given India’s different legal framework.

 

Counter Arguments and Responses:

Microsoft countered the user-interface argument by demonstrating that their invention’s technical effect and contribution went beyond the user-interface level. They showed how the two-tier authentication system provided a fundamental technical solution to network security issues rather than merely improving user experience.

 

The petitioner also emphasized that the Controller’s approach of rejecting the application solely because it involved computer-executable instructions on a general-purpose computing device was overly simplistic and failed to consider the technical advancement their invention provided.

 

Through these arguments, the case centered on the fundamental question of how to interpret “computer program per se” under Section 3(k) and what constitutes sufficient technical effect or contribution to make a computer-related invention patentable in India.

 

Analysis of the court 

Historical Analysis of Section 3(k):

The Court began by conducting a detailed historical analysis of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, tracing its evolution from the Patents Bill, 1999 through various amendments. The Court noted that the term “per se” was specifically added to Section 3(k) through recommendations of the Joint Parliamentary Committee in 2001. The Committee had clarified that the addition was intended to ensure that while computer programs alone would not be granted patents, inventions that included computer programs as part of a larger system or development could be patentable.

 

Interpretation of “Computer Program Per Se”:

The Court emphasized that despite clear legislative intent, the term “per se” had led to inconsistent application of the law. The Court referred to its earlier decision in Ferid Allani, noting that the addition of “per se” was meant to clarify that genuine inventions based on computer programs should not be refused patents. The Court stressed the importance of examining the technical effect and technical advancement of computer-related inventions (CRIs) in determining their patentability.

 

Analysis of Patent Office Guidelines:

The Court reviewed various guidelines issued by the Patent Office for examining CRIs, from 2013 to 2017. It noted that while the 2017 guidelines were more progressive regarding patentability of CRIs, there was still a lack of clear examples or “signposts” to guide examiners in evaluating technical effect and contribution of such inventions.

 

Critique of Controller’s Approach:

The Court found that the Controller’s approach in rejecting Microsoft’s patent application was fundamentally flawed. The Controller had simply concluded that the invention was non-patentable because it involved computer-executable instructions on a general-purpose computing device. The Court held that this approach missed the point entirely – the mere fact that an invention involves algorithms or computer programs does not automatically make it non-patentable.

 

Technical Effect Analysis:

Examining Microsoft’s invention, the Court found that it provided a clear technical solution to a technical problem. The two-tier authentication system using different cookies offered improved security for network access, preventing unauthorized access even if cookies were stolen. The Court determined that this went beyond mere user interface improvements and represented a fundamental advancement in network security.

 

Need for Clear Guidelines:

The Court emphasized the importance of establishing clear criteria for determining patentability of computer programs. It directed the Patent Office to develop comprehensive signposts and examples to guide examiners, similar to practices followed by the European Patent Office and USPTO. The Court suggested that these guidelines should be regularly updated to keep pace with technological developments.

 

Final Determination:

The Court concluded that the Controller had erred in interpreting Section 3(k) and overlooking the technical effect and contribution of Microsoft’s invention. It found that the invention was not a “computer program per se” as it provided a novel technical solution to a security problem. The Court set aside the Controller’s order and directed re-examination of the patent application focusing on novelty and inventive step requirements.

 

Broader Implications:

In its analysis, the Court emphasized the need for the Indian Patent Office to adopt a more comprehensive approach when assessing CRIs, focusing on technical effects and contributions rather than merely the presence of algorithms or computer programs. The Court stressed that patent protection should be available for genuine technological innovations that solve real-world problems, even if they involve computer programs.