德里高等法院根据《专利法》第 3(k) 条驳回 IPO 拒绝专利申请的决定

2024 年 11 月 12 日，在 Comviva Technologies 诉专利与设计助理总监一案中，德里高等法院撤销了印度专利局的裁决

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，德里高等法院驳回了印度专利局 (IPO) 根据《专利法》第 3(k) 条拒绝专利申请的决定，该条涉及计算机程序和商业方法 (2024:DHC ：8990）。 IPO最初拒绝了这项名为“使用电子令牌验证电子支付卡的方法和设备”的申请，理由是该发明涉及商业交易并提供了一种安全的电子支付方法，这是一种商业交易促进组织与其客户之间信任的工具。根据IPO的说法，这些权利要求本质上是一组可执行指令，既不展示技术进步，也不超越软件和硬件之间的传统交互。结果，该发明因“计算机程序本身”而被排除在外。此外，申请的说明书和权利要求书未能公开特征之间的任何技术交互；仅仅存在技术效果或贡献不足以满足《专利法》第 3(k) 条规定的要求，该条规定“数学或商业方法或计算机程序本身或算法”不可授予专利主题。

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.

Comviva 在向德里高等法院提起的上诉中辩称，该发明公开了一种两步安全验证技术，因此与金融交易的身份验证有关，而不是交易本身。此外，由于该申请公开了技术问题和解决方案，因此本发明不涉及计算机程序本身。法院提到了 2017 年计算机相关发明审查指南，该指南规定，如果申请中披露的活动涉及商品或服务交易，则适用与商业方法相关的异议。法院强调，“商业”、“销售”、“交易”和“付款”等术语的存在不足以得出发明与商业方法相关的结论。

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:

还参考了 Open TV v The Controller of Patents and Design，其中讨论了以下用于确定申请是否与商业方法相关的三步测试 (2023:DHC:3305)。它考虑是否：

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.

法院根据这三步测试对发明和权利要求的主题进行了分析。结论是，本发明通过消除无效令牌来提高安全性，并确保仅接受授权令牌进行交易。因此，本发明不涉及商业方法或金融交易，而是解决技术问题，防止使用电子支付卡进行未经授权的交易。法院还指出，该发明推动了非接触式支付的技术进步。在审查了有关该问题的现有司法先例后，法院发现该发明的主题与计算机程序本身无关。

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，它撤销了驳回令并授予了专利，但须遵守 IPO 根据《专利法》可能提出的任何其他反对意见。