德里高等法院根據《專利法》第 3(k) 條駁回 IPO 拒絕專利申請的決定

2024 年 11 月 12 日，在 Comviva Technologies 訴專利與設計助理總監一案中，德里高等法院撤銷了印度專利局的裁決

On 12 November 2024, the Delhi High Court set aside the Indian Patent Office (IPO)’s refusal of a patent application based on Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, which relates to a computer program and business method (2024:DHC:8990). The IPO had initially refused the application, which was titled “Methods and Devices for Authentication of an Electronic Payment Card using Electronic Token”, on the grounds that the invention pertained to commercial transactions and offered a secure method for electronic payments, which is a business tool to foster trust between organisations and their customers. According to the IPO, the claims were essentially a set of executable instructions that neither demonstrated technical advancement nor exceeded the conventional interactions between software and hardware. As a result, the invention was excluded on the grounds of being a “computer program per se”. Moreover, the application’s description and claims failed to disclose any technical interaction between the features; the mere presence of technical effect or contribution was insufficient to meet the requirements imposed by Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, which makes “a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms” non-patentable subject matter.

2024 年 11 月 12 日，德里高等法院駁回了印度專利局 (IPO) 根據《專利法》第 3(k) 條拒絕專利申請的決定，該條涉及計算機程序和商業方法 (2024:DHC ：8990） 。 IPO最初拒絕了這項名為「使用電子代幣驗證電子支付卡的方法和設備」的申請，理由是該發明涉及商業交易並提供了一種安全的電子支付方法，這是一種商業交易促進組織與其客戶之間信任的工具。根據IPO的說法，這些權利要求本質上是一組可執行指令，既不展示技術進步，也不超越軟體和硬體之間的傳統互動。結果，該發明因“計算機程式本身”而被排除在外。此外，申請的說明書和權利要求書未能公開特徵之間的任何技術互動；僅僅存在技術效果或貢獻不足以滿足《專利法》第 3(k) 條規定的要求，該條規定「數學或商業方法或電腦程式本身或演算法」不可授予專利主題。

In an appeal filed before the Delhi High Court, Comviva argued that the invention disclosed a two-step security verification technique and was thus related to the authentication of financial transactions and not a transaction itself. Further, since the application disclosed a technical problem and solution, the invention did not relate to a computer program per se. The court referred to the 2017 Guidelines for Examination of Computer-Related Inventions, which prescribe that an objection related to a business method would be applicable where the activity disclosed in the application pertains to a transaction of goods or services. The court emphasised that the presence of terms such as ‘business’, ‘sales’, ‘transaction’ and ‘payment’ is not enough to conclude that an invention relates to a business method.

在向德里高等法院提起的上訴中，Comviva 辯稱，該發明公開了兩步驟安全驗證技術，因此與金融交易的身份驗證有關，而不是交易本身。此外，由於該申請公開了技術問題和解決方案，因此本發明不涉及電腦程式本身。法院提到了 2017 年電腦相關發明審查指南，其中規定，如果申請中披露的活動涉及商品或服務交易，則適用與商業方法相關的異議。法院強調，「商業」、「銷售」、「交易」和「付款」等術語的存在不足以得出發明與商業方法相關的結論。

Reference was also made to Open TV v The Controller of Patents and Designs, which had discussed the following three-step test for deciding if an application related to a business method (2023:DHC:3305). It considered whether:

也參考了 Open TV v The Controller of Patents and Design，其中討論了以下用於確定申請是否與商業方法相關的三步驟測試 (2023:DHC:3305)。它考慮是否：

The court analysed the invention and subject matter of the claims in view of this three-step test. It concluded that the invention improves security by eliminating invalid tokens and ensures that only authorised tokens are accepted for conducting transactions. Therefore, the invention did not relate to a business method or financial transaction but rather addressed a technical problem, preventing unauthorised transactions using electronic payment cards. The court also noted that the invention resulted in a technical advancement in contactless payments. After reviewing existing judicial precedents on the issue, the court found that the invention’s subject matter did not relate to a computer program per se.

法院根據這三步驟測試對發明和權利要求的主題進行了分析。結論是，本發明透過消除無效令牌來提高安全性，並確保僅接受授權令牌進行交易。因此，本發明不涉及商業方法或金融交易，而是解決技術問題，防止使用電子支付卡進行未經授權的交易。法院也指出，該發明推動了非接觸式支付的技術進步。在審查了有關該問題的現有司法先例後，法院發現該發明的主題與電腦程式本身無關。

Accordingly, it set aside the refusal order and granted the patent, subject to any other objections that may be raised by the IPO in accordance with the Patents Act.

因此，它撤銷了駁回令並授予了專利，但須遵守 IPO 根據《專利法》可能提出的任何其他反對意見。