Flipkart Internet Private Limited filed an appeal under Section 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970 challenging the order dated 09.10.2023 passed by the Joint Controller of Patents dismissing Flipkart's post-grant opposition against Indian Patent No. 312437 granted to Voicemonk Inc. titled “Systems and Methods for Virtual Agents to Help Customers and Business”.
The patent, granted on 08.05.2019 after multiple amendments, relates to a virtual agent system that receives audio input, identifies desired user actions (search, sort, select, submit, compare), stores and uses correlations (sequential, hierarchical or lateral) between these actions, executes them in a combined manner, and displays a single consolidated output page instead of multiple sequential pages.
Flipkart primarily contended lack of novelty, inventive step, patentability under Section 3(k), insufficiency of disclosure, and violation of natural justice principles.
After detailed claim-wise comparison of the cited prior arts (D1 to D7), analysis of characterizing features, and following the legal principles on novelty and inventive step laid down in Lava International Limited vs. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (2024 SCC OnLine Del 2497), the Madras High Court held that the impugned order was well-reasoned, considered all relevant materials, and did not suffer from any perversity or violation of natural justice. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Law Point:
While deciding questions of novelty and inventive step, the principles and the systematic “Seven Stambhas Approach” for assessment of novelty laid down by the Delhi High Court in *Lava International Limited vs. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson* (2024 SCC OnLine Del 2497) should be taken as guiding principles. (Para 9 in)
The test of novelty requires that the prior publication must contain the whole of the invention impugned i.e. all the features by which the particular claim is limited; anticipation must describe or amount to an infringement of the attacked claim. (Para 11)
Prior art must provide clear and unmistakable directions which, when carried out, would inevitably result in something falling within the claims of the patent; mere suggestion or putting on the road is not sufficient.
Case Title: Flipkart Internet Private Ltd Vs. The Joint Controller of Patents: 05.01.2026 :CMA(PT) No. 9 of 2024 : Madras HC:The Honourable Mr. Justice N. Senthilkumar
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
