The Suit Patent has been a topic of controversy in the technology world for some time now. It is a patent that describes a configuration for enhancing subscriber capacity in a cellular wireless communication system. The patent specifically relates to a split-sector antenna that emits at least one asymmetrical beam in a specific configuration.
One of the main arguments surrounding the Suit Patent has been whether or not it is for an antenna emitting asymmetrical beams. The patent is for a split-sector antenna emitting at least one asymmetrical beam in a configuration as specified, which enhances subscriber capacity. This distinction is essential, as it highlights the specific nature of the patent and its intended scope.
The next question that arises is whether or not the prior art has disclosed an antenna with the given configuration that enhances subscriber capacity in a cellular wireless communication system. This issue is critical, as it speaks to the novelty and non-obviousness of the Suit Patent.
In this Judgement, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has also thrown some light as to how the provisions of Section 3 (d) of the Patent Act has to be evaluated, besides other issues. Here is the brief discussion on the subject matter Appeal involved.
The subject matter Appeal were allowed against the
judgment dated 12.07.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in the applications filed by the respondent (plaintiff in the suit) under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
THE SUBJECT MATTER INDIAN PATENT: IN240893 TITLED AS ASYMMETRIC BEAM PATTERN
The Plaintiff asserted right in the new kind of Antenna bearing Asymmetric Beam Pattern. The Plaintiff asserted that the subject matter Patent has efficacy over the prior art antenna having symmetrical Beam Pattern as this technology removes the problem faced by the prior art of call dropping.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi hold jusrisdiction of Hon'ble Court to entertain the suit as jusrisdiction was held to be a disputed fact, which could have been decided at the trial stage.
Neither of any prior art shows any teaching encouraging the person known in the art to defeat the Patentability of subject matter invention.
THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE JUDGEMENT IS AS UNDER:
1.The suit is not for an antenna emitting asymmetrical beams;
it is a split-sector antenna emitting at least one asymmetrical beam in a
configuration as specified, which enhances the subscriber capacity.
2. Thus, the necessary question to be addressed is not whether an antenna
emitting asymmetrical beams was disclosed by prior art; it is whether
an antenna with the given configuration, which enhances subscriber
capacity in a cellular wireless communication system, was disclosed by
the prior art.
3.Mere discovery of a new use of a known process of a
product would not be patentable under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act.
4. However, a known product, which is specifically modified and
configured to provide a specified result of an economic value, would be
considered to be patentable as it would be a new product.
5.The Suit Patent is in respect of a method that describes a configuration for enhancing the subscriber capacity by using asymmetrical sub-sector coverage area.
6.Claim no.10 is in respect of a product that is so configured to emit
beams of the characteristics as described above.
7.It is obvious that the beams are not uncontrolled beams but are controlled to achieve the desired purpose. A product of the given description would, prima facie,be patentable.
8.The fact that a patent has been granted in some countries and
revoked in another, underscores the point that the question whether the
Suit Patent is liable to be revoked, is required to be considered by the
Court independently.
9. For evaluating the Patentability under Section (1) (a) and 64 (1) (h), not only the claims , but also whole specification has to be seen.
10.As there was no apparent perversity in the Judgment assailed, Plaintiff was held to be rightly entitled for injunction.
THE CONCLUDING NOTE:
The relevant issue is whether or not the prior art has disclosed an antenna with the given configuration that enhances subscriber capacity. This matter is of utmost importance, as it will determine the patentability of the Suit Patent under Indian Patent Law.
It is also essential to understand the criteria for patentability under Indian Patent Law. Section 3(d) of the Patents Act clarifies that the mere discovery of a new use of a known process or product would not be patentable. However, a known product that is specifically modified and configured to provide an economic value would be considered patentable as a new product.
In light of this information, it is evident that the Suit Patent would be patentable under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. The Suit Patent is in respect of a method that describes a configuration for enhancing subscriber capacity by using asymmetrical sub-sector coverage area. Claim no.10 is in respect of a product that is so configured to emit beams of the characteristics as described above.
It is also worth noting that the beams emitted by the product described in the Suit Patent are not uncontrolled beams. They are controlled to achieve the desired purpose of boosting subscriber capacity, making the product prima facie patentable.
It is important to remember that when evaluating the patentability under Section (1) (a) and 64 (1) (h), not only the claims but the whole specification should be considered. This broader view of the patent information will ensure a more comprehensive understanding of its intended scope and potential feasibility.
The Suit Patent is not for an antenna emitting asymmetrical beams but for a split-sector antenna that emits at least one asymmetrical beam in a specific configuration to enhance subscriber capacity.
The issue of patentability is not whether prior art has disclosed an antenna emitting asymmetrical beams but whether prior art has disclosed an antenna with the given configuration to enhance subscriber capacity. The Suit Patent meets the criteria for patentability under Indian Patent Law. Hence in the Appeal, the Plaintiff was righty held to have been granting the injunction.
THE CASE LAW DISCUSSED:
Date of Judgement:10.04.2023
Case No. FAO(OS) (COMM) 186 of 2019
Neutral Citation No.2023:DHC:2479-DB
Name of Court: Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judges: Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan
Case Title: ACE Technologies Corp Vs Communication Components Antenna
DISCLAIMER:
I do not guarantee the correctness and/or genuineness of thoughts/idea/ and information shared herein as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception and presentation.
Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor
Patent and Trade Mark Attorney
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Mob:9990389539
Email: ajayamitabh7@gmail.com
जंजीर
-
जंजीर
जहाँ आदम की जात और बाते हों पीर की।
प्यादे की चाल और बातें वजीर की।
खेत हो किसानों के गेहूं अमीर की।
अमन के नाम पर बातें हो तीर की।
देख कही...
1 week ago
