Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Getaround, Inc vs Assistant Controller Of Patents And ... on 10 May, 2022

Author: Prathiba M. Singh

Bench: Prathiba M. Singh

                                                           Signature Not Verified
                                                           Digitally Signed
                                                           By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
                                                           Signing Date:12.05.2022
                                                           15:52:08

$~1
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                  C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 15/2021
       GETAROUND, INC.                                  ..... Appellant
                    Through:          Mr.   Rohit      Rangi,     Advocate.
                                      (M:8800558037)
                             versus

       ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS
       AND DESIGNS                             ..... Respondent
                      Through: Mr. Harish V. Shankar, CGSC with
                               Ms. S. Bushra Kazim, Mr. Srish
                               Kumar Mishra and Mr. Sagar
                               Mehlawat, Advocates for UOI.
                               (M:9810788606)
       CORAM:
       JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
                ORDER

% 10.05.2022

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 15th January, 2020, passed in the matter of Indian Patent Application No.3760/DELNP/2012 (hereinafter "subject invention"), by which the application of the Appellant for the patent titled "VEHICLE ACCESS CONTROL SERVICES AND PLATFORM", filed on 30th April, 2012, has been rejected by the Patent Office. Upon the said application being examined by the Patent Office, various objections were raised. However, finally, the application has been rejected by citing two prior art documents i.e., D5 and D6 on the grounds of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970. The said two documents are two US Patents i.e., C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 15/2021 Page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:12.05.2022 15:52:08 D5 - US 2008200209 (A1) and D6 - US 2007200671 (A1).

3. Mr. Rohit Rangi, ld. Counsel for the Appellant, attempts to distinguish the said two prior arts. At the outset, in regard to the subject invention, he submits that the same is an invention which utilizes (i) a wireless communication device such as the smartphone of the driver, (ii) a vehicle access kit installed in the vehicle and a (iii) central server, to enable the mobile user to access various functions of the vehicle, such as locking/unlocking it. The said functions are executed through multi-layer encryption and decryption. Notably however, ld. Counsel submits that the vehicle access kit does not use cellular or satellite communication capabilities. In regard to the first prior art document D5, ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the said document relates to a portable memory drive or device, which can be used in substitution of an automobile key. He submits that this document would not, in any manner, affect the inventive nature of the subject invention.

4. Insofar as document D6 is concerned, ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the same is a system, wherein there is communication between the car and the user, by which an access code is provided to the user's mobile device by the vehicle itself, whenever the user is locked out of the car and the key has been left behind in the car. In the said system, there is communication between the car and the user, which is exactly the opposite of the system, which the subject invention discloses. In the subject invention, there is no communication emanating from the car at all, but instead, the communication emanates from the central server to the mobile device and thereafter, to the access server located in the car.

5. He further submits that the said documents D5 and D6 have been cited by the various other Patent Offices including the US Patent Office but in all those jurisdictions, the patents corresponding to the subject invention, have been granted. However, on a query from the Court, it is submitted that the European Patent Office ("EPO") has refused the patent corresponding to the subject invention, on the ground of lack of inventive step, but citing other prior arts.

6. Ld. counsel for the Appellant to place on record a short note of submissions as to the manner in which the US Patent Office and other Patent Offices have considered the subject prior art, within four weeks. The order of the European Patent Office refusing the corresponding patent be also placed on record. The said short note of submissions and relevant documents, be served upon the Respondent in advance.

7. List on 20th July, 2022.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

MAY 10, 2022/dk/ms C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 15/2021 Page 3 of 3