One of the highlights of this meeting was Mr Prasad’s specific instructions to his drafting committee team to remove most of the statements in the manual that attempted to somehow induct foreign case law (particularly the word “technical”) whilst interpreting section 3(k) dealing with the patenting of software.
Readers may recollect an editoriral in the Mint, where I argued that it would be a disaster for India to co-opt the rather tortuous norms evolved by UK and EU courts in their bid to grant software patents, even when their statutes clearly prohibited such grants. I had noted then that:
“… till such time as the software patent exclusion remains on our statute book, it ought to be adhered to and respected. India must avoid buying into the tortuous interpretative process that has characterized American and European jurisprudence on this count.”
I brought all of this to the notice of Mr Prasad during the course of the meeting, as also the fact that the current manual appears to suggest in several places that any software that is somehow “technical” would merit patent protection. As I’d noted in the Mint editorial:
“One is hard-pressed to think of any software program that might fail this “technical contribution” test, particularly when a patent application covering such programs, is crafted by a clever patent attorney.
Indian judges ought to eschew such legal casuistry in favour of a simple straightforward reading of section 3(k), which excludes computer programs per se from patentability.”
Mr Prasad clearly reiterated that the Manual was only meant to provide general guidance and that legal interpretation around contentious issues ought to be left to the courts.
I hope to do more posts to bring out other aspects of the discussions that transpired during this patent stakeholders meeting. So watch this space for more.
Related Posts
Yves Choueifaty v. Attorney General of Canada: An Interesting Development from Canada on Claim Construction and Patent Office Manuals
IPAB’s Ferid Allani Order and the Changed Indian Patent Landscape for Software Patents
Reengineering of the Requirement of Disclosure of Foreign Applications by the 2019 Patent Manual
Patent Office Publishes Stakeholders’ Comments on Patent Working Issues and Form 27
Patent Working PIL (Update): Court Clarifies Patent “Licensing” Confidentiality and Suggests Form 27 Reform
3 comments.
“U.S. high court asked to take up Bilski patent case” http://www.reuters.com/article/deborahCohen/idUSTRE50R5PU20090128
With my experience in software industry and now as a would be patent attorney I feel that software is best protectd under copyright.Especially after the decision of Computer Associates v Altai Inc case, which lays down the exact mode of protection for software under copyright, I think it is redundant for India to move into a patent regime for softwares. During my working days in the industry I felt that generating inventions in computer codes is much easier than in other field of technology. So why create a dangerous mine field of patents in softwares, where inevntion is a day to day work of the developers. Practically softwares are “too technical for copyright and too literal for patents”. So a sui generis system may be a good alternative.
Another good reason for not moving into a patent regime is that most of the Software industry in India is service based. We basically do not generate much IP in this field as the global major software product companies like Microsoft or IBM(Indian majors like TCS and Infosys combinedly do not have more than 500 patents whereas IBM files more than 5000 patents a year). So why sould we move into a strict software regime which may be detrimental to the growth of small service based industries in this sector.
Thanks Utsab,
Its good to get an inside industry view on this. And I agree with the general thrust of your argument.