FACTS
The appellant, AB Initio Technology LLC, filed an Indian national phase patent application No. 4693/CHENP/2010 dated 27 July 2010, based on PCT application PCT/US2009/035293, claiming priority from U.S. Patent Application 61/031,672 dated 26 February 2008. The invention was titled "Graphic Representations of Data Relationship".
AB Initio Technology Vs The Con…
The application was directed to a technological solution for identifying and tracing defective or altered data from multiple data sources after the global financial crisis of 2008, where failure in a single data component could affect multiple downstream computations. The invention enabled automated retrieval and graphical representation of data lineage, showing the relationship between programs and datasets across distributed systems.
AB Initio Technology Vs The Con…
A First Examination Report was issued on 30 January 2018, raising objections on novelty, inventive step, patentability under Section 3(k), lack of clarity and insufficiency of disclosure. The applicant replied and amended claims on 12 July 2018. A hearing was held on 7 January 2020, followed by written submissions and further amendments. Despite this, the Controller rejected the application on 13 July 2020, sustaining objections under Section 3(k) and Section 2(1)(j).
AB Initio Technology Vs The Con…
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
After rejection of the application, AB Initio filed a statutory appeal under Section 117-A(2) of the Patents Act, 1970, before the Madras High Court. The appellant argued that the Controller had ignored the technical contribution of the invention and applied Section 3(k) without proper reasoning. The respondent defended the rejection by characterising the invention as a mere software implementation of data queries.
AB Initio Technology Vs The Con…
CORE DISPUTE
The dispute revolved around two legal questions:
Whether the claimed invention is barred from patent protection under Section 3(k) as a computer program "per se".
Whether the invention lacks novelty and inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) in view of prior art D1: US2007214179A1 and D2: US6718319B1.
AB Initio Technology Vs The Con…
JUDICIAL REASONING
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy delivered a comprehensive discussion of patentability of computer-related inventions (CRIs).
The Court noted that the Controller had rejected the invention on the reasoning that it merely automated data queries using algorithms and did not contain novel hardware. However, the Court scrutinised this view against statutory interpretation and international legal developments.
AB Initio Technology Vs The Con…
Regarding Section 3(k), the Court analysed the meaning of “computer programme per se” and highlighted that the exclusion cannot be applied mechanically to any invention involving software. The correct legal test is whether the claimed invention provides:
• a technical contribution,
• a technical effect, or
• a technical advancement in computer functionality.
The Court carefully examined the invention and found that it did not merely display data but introduced a technical solution to a technical problem. The system retrieved metadata sets through selection specifications, automatically identified upstream and downstream data relationships, and generated a visual lineage diagram capturing interconnections among programs and datasets. This improved efficiency of data tracing across heterogeneous systems, a task not feasible manually at scale.
AB Initio Technology Vs The Con…
Thus, the invention satisfied the threshold of technical contribution and was not a computer programme per se. The fact that the invention could run on general-purpose hardware did not strip away patentability.
Regarding novelty and inventive step, the Court compared the invention with D1. The prior art disclosed retrieval of related data entities but did not reveal data lineage tracing among programs and data using configuration information sets containing multiple selection specifications of different types. D1 did not provide a visual lineage structure that exposed transformation and relational evolution of data. Therefore, the Controller’s finding of lack of novelty and lack of inventive step was held unsustainable.
AB Initio Technology Vs The Con…
The Court emphasised that the Controller had neither properly analysed the technical contribution nor considered whether a person skilled in the art would be able to derive the claimed invention from prior art, and had therefore failed to apply Section 2(1)(j) lawfully.
DECISION
The Madras High Court held that the invention provided a genuine technical advancement and that the rejection under Section 3(k) and Section 2(1)(j) was unsustainable. The Court set aside the Controller’s order dated 13 July 2020 and directed fresh consideration of the application consistent with legal principles governing computer-related inventions.
AB Initio Technology LLC Vs The Controller of Patents and Designs
Order Date: 04.11.2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:2579
Case Number: (T)CMA(PT) No. 58 of 2023 / OA/57/2020/PT/CHN
Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Hon’ble Judge: Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
SUGGESTED ACADEMIC TITLES
Technical Contribution in Computer-Related Inventions: A Study of AB Initio Technology v. Controller of Patents
Rethinking Section 3(k): Judicial Recognition of Software-Enabled Technical Innovation
Patentability of Data Lineage Systems: A Legal Analysis of Madras High Court’s Approach
From Algorithm to Technical Effect: How Courts Distinguish Patentable CRIs
Balancing Innovation and Exclusion in Software Patents: Lessons from AB Initio Technology Case
DISCLAIMER
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
