BLACKBERRY LIMITED vs CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 30.04.2026 + C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 BLACKBERRY LIMITED .....Appellant versus CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS .....Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case For the Appellant : Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Ashutosh Upadhyaya and Mr. Sandeep Bhola, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. P.S. Singh, CGSC with MR. Rajneesh Kr. Sharma, Ms. Minakshi Singh, Mr. Ashutosh Bharti and Ms. Shivangi Sharma, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA JUDGMENT TEJAS KARIA, J INTRODUCTION 1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 (“Act”) seeking quashing and setting aside of orders dated 11.10.2019 (“Impugned Order I”) and 05.03.2020 (“Impugned Order II”) passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (“Respondent / Controller”) under Section 15 of the Act (“Impugned Orders”) refusing Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 1 of 36 Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:30.04.2026 20:45:38 the Patent Application No. 1976/DEL/2008 filed on 20.08.2008 titled as “COLOUR DIFFERENTIATING A PORTION OF A TEXT MESSAGE SHOWN IN A LISTING ON A HANDHELD COMMUNICATION DEVICE” (“Subject Application”). FACTUAL MATRIX 2. The Subject Application claims priority from European Patent Application No. 07117003.9 filed on 21.09.2007 (“EP Application”). The Subject Application and the request for examination for the same was filed on 20.08.2008. The Subject Application was published under Section 11(A) of the Act on 17.04.2009. 3. The Subject Application was examined, and First Examination Report was issued on 10.09.2014 (“FER”). The substantial objection raised in the FER relates to the claims lacking novelty under Section 2(1)(j) of the Act in view of the document EP1767008 (A1)