BLACKBERRY LIMITED vs ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS

Judgment text excerpt

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 23rd April, 2025 + C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 125/2022 BLACKBERRY LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Ms. Reetika Ahuja, Mr. Achyut Tewari, Mr. Aayush Maheshwari & Ms. Krisha Baweja, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Arnav Kumar, CGSC with Ms.Gitanjali Vohra, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) and is directed against impugned order dated 31st July, 2019 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs (hereinafter the ‘Controller’), whereby the Indian Patent Application No. 1071/DEL/2007 titled “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR SIGNALING RELEASE CAUSE INDICATION IN A UMTS NETWORK” (hereinafter the ‘subject patent application’) has been refused under Section 15 of the Patents Act. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 125/2022 Page 1 of 5 By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Date:30.04.2025 14:51:22 2. The appellant filed the subject application relating to radio resource control between User Equipment (UE) and Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (UTRAN), and in particular to the release of an existing signaling connection in a UMTS network on 17th May, 2007 at the Patent Office, New Delhi. 3. The respondent had issued First Examination Report (hereinafter “FER”) on 18th June, 2015, raising various objections against the subject application, which are as follows: i. Lack of novelty and inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) of the Act. ii. Not patentable under Section 3(k) and Section 3(m) of the Act. iii. Lack of clarity and unity under Section 10(4)(c) and 10(5) of the Act. iv. Suppression of information under