What is Inventive Step objection and how to overcome it?

Patentability of a subject matter majorly depends on: Novelty, Inventive Step and Industrial applicability – and the subject matter is supposed to comply all the three criteria to be eligible for patenting. Out of the three criteria, perhaps, proving the fact that the subject matter is inventive is the most challenging one. 

Now, inventive step being a subjective matter, it is quite unpredictable at times – the way of its interpretation may vary from person to person; thus, a dearth of uncertainty is always there till the end of the tunnel, i.e. till the grant of the patent. 

So let us first understand what actually is Inventive Step:

In the Indian Patents Act, 1970, Section 2(1)(ja) defines inventive step as:

““inventive step” means a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art;”

To check for the presence of inventive step in a patentable subject matter, the examiner is free to combine or even mosaic the teachings of multiple prior arts – and if the resultant of the mosaicking results in a subject matter which is closely related to the patentable subject matter in question, the inventive step of the subject matter stands objected. Which in other words, indicate that if the resultant effect of combined reading of the existing prior art results something which functions in the similar fashion or solves the similar issue or addresses the same issue as that of the present subject matter in question, then the same would not be considered to be having inventive step.

When it comes to economic significance as a part of inventive step assessment, it depends on the disclosure in the application document – which ideally is required to disclose how the present subject matter contributes to economy (for e.g.: 1/5th of the price of a similar subject matter etc.). Economic significance is usually not that difficult to prove if the application already discloses the economic significance or if not, the applicant should be able to prove the same during the prosecution stage. 

The major challenge lies in identifying ‘a person skilled in the art’ because of the fact that ‘a person skilled in the art’ is not defined in the Indian Patents Act, 1970 – thus that always leaves the discretion to the examining authority with regard to identification of Inventive Step. Based on the case law evolution, it is generally followed that a person skilled in the art is one who:

  • Belongs to the same field as that of the subject matter in question;
  • Assess the subject matter based on his expertise or acquired knowledge in the same domain and is aware of the fact that small changes can bring dramatic functionality change in the subject matter.

Further, it is the ‘hindsight bias’ of the person skilled in the art results in evaluating past actions or occurrences where the evaluator is aware of how those actions or events turned out – which influences the judgement of the inventive step of the subject matter in question.

Now, how to overcome the inventive-step objection?

For an inventor or even for an attorney, learning the fact that the patent has been rejected based on the fact of invention being ‘non-inventive’ can be quite frustrating as ‘inventiveness’ is a pure subjective matter and many-a-times becomes tough to overcome. 

In India, inventive step objection generally comes in the stages of First Examination Report or Hearing or Opposition. Being subjective in nature, it can definitely get tricky, but then there are ways in which inventive step, if justified logically, can be overcome. Those can be:

  • Technically justify the fact that the subject matter in question is not a mere workshop improvement – it involves technical advancement, and thus even the mosaicking of prior arts would not result in the technicality as involved in the present subject matter;
  • Proving the fact that the prior arts cited to challenge the inventive step fail to teach or suggest the solution to the problem as has been done by the present subject matter;
  • A mere hindsight bias of the controller – without any fall back on the prior arts can be challenged based on the fact that none of the disclosures teach or suggest the solution to the problem statement as identifies as well as solved by the current subject matter;
  • Additionally, if the inventive step justification isn’t convincing enough, claim or specification amendments can be done to take care of the same.

Moreover, a well drafted patent application can even minimize the occurrence of obviousness rejection in the first place itself. It helps in saving resources and achieving the intended results. 

With the increasing rate of patent enforcement activities in India, it is quite frequently observed that the inventive step objections come up – but then with a properly drafted application, it can be minimized to a large extent.

Author: Priyanka Chakraborty

Copyright © 2023 Intellect Vidhya Solutions Law LLP. All rights reserved.

Frequently Asked Questions:

Is obviousness the same as inventive step?

The Term Obviousness is most of the times synonymously used for Inventive step – some Patent offices use the term Inventive Step while others use non-Obviousness.

While in India, the Indian Patents Act 1970 Section 2(1)(ja) defines inventive step, US Patent Law mentions, a patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.

How is non-obviousness related to inventive step?

For a subject matter to be eligible for patenting, it should be sufficiently inventive and non-obvious. The purpose of the inventive step, or non-obviousness, requirement is to avoid granting patents for inventions which is a mere workshop improvement, and to achieve a balance between monopoly that patenting provides and encouraging invention.

What is the difference between inventive step and non-obviousness?  

The expression “inventive step” is predominantly used in Indian and Europe, while the expression “non-obviousness” is predominantly used in United States patent law. Thus, they both fundamentally indicates that an invention to be eligible for patenting, should be technically sound enough and not related to any known concepts of existing prior arts.

Share:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp

Related Posts

The Ethical and Legal Dilemma of AI Voice Cloning in the Music Industry - Intellect Vidhya

The Ethical and Legal Dilemma of AI Voice Cloning in the Music Industry

In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has made remarkable progress in various fields, including music production. Voice cloning in music has been a subject of intense debate, raising questions about copyright infringement, moral rights, and the preservation of artistic integrity. The recent criticism voiced by legendary Indian playback singer Kumar Sanu against AI voice duplication brings attention to the mounting concerns within the music industry. Power and Potential of AI Voice Cloning AI voice cloning technology has made significant progress in recreating the voices of singers with outstanding precision. This ability has resulted in the development of new songs that utilise the voices of artists who have passed away, as demonstrated in the recent example of “Pehle Hi Main.” This song was created using an AI-generated voice that mimics the late Mohammed Rafi, who sadly passed away in 1980. Although this technology presents fascinating opportunities for music production and preservation, it also brings up important ethical and legal concerns. Dealing with Copyright Infringement Copyright infringement is a significant legal concern when it comes to AI voice cloning. A singer’s voice is regarded as their valuable asset, safeguarded by copyright laws in numerous jurisdictions. When AI is employed to imitate a singer’s voice without authorization, it may potentially infringe upon copyright protections. This encompasses violations of reproduction rights, distribution rights, and the unauthorised creation of derivative works. Moral Rights and Personality Rights In addition to copyright concerns, AI voice cloning also brings up ethical and legal questions surrounding moral rights and personality rights. It is important for singers to safeguard their work from any alterations or manipulations that may negatively impact their reputation. Additionally, there is a potential for confusion and misrepresentation when AI-generated voices are not explicitly identified. Furthermore, in numerous legal systems, people possess the authority to regulate the commercial exploitation of their identity, appearance, or voice. Voice cloning might be perceived as a violation of these rights. Cloning the Voices of Deceased Artists Using AI to replicate the voices of deceased artists, such as Mohammed Rafi, brings about a whole new set of challenges. Although copyright protection usually lasts for many years after an artist’s passing, the ethical considerations surrounding the use of a deceased artist’s voice without their permission are quite substantial. There are concerns regarding the preservation of the legacy and artistic intentions of deceased musicians. Industry Response Kumar Sanu’s decision to pursue legal protection against AI voice cloning demonstrates a rising recognition of these concerns within the music industry. Other artists and industry professionals are also advocating for the establishment of regulatory frameworks to oversee the utilisation of AI in music production. There are several potential solutions being discussed to address the challenges posed by AI in music. These include establishing licencing protocols for the use of AI-cloned voices, requiring clear disclosure when AI voice cloning is used in a production, and developing specific laws to tackle these unique challenges. The Path Forward As AI technology advances, it is essential for the legal system to stay up to date. Collaboration between the music industry, legislators, and AI developers is crucial in establishing a framework that balances the protection of artists’ rights with the promotion of innovation. This could potentially include the need to revise copyright laws to specifically tackle AI-generated content, setting industry norms for the ethical application of AI in music production, and devising methods for artists to maintain control over and profit from the utilisation of their AI-replicated voices. Conclusion The emergence of AI voice cloning technology brings forth a range of possibilities and complexities for the music industry. Although it presents exciting opportunities for creativity, it also raises serious concerns regarding artists’ rights and the authenticity of their work. As evidenced by Kumar Sanu’s case, it is clear that there is a pressing requirement for the establishment of legal and ethical frameworks to regulate the utilisation of this technology. As we move forward with the more enhanced versions of AI, it’s crucial to find a harmony between technological advancement and safeguarding artists’ rights. It is crucial to establish thoughtful regulation and foster industry cooperation to ensure that AI positively impacts the creative ecosystem of the music industry.

Read More »
Understanding Personality Rights in MEME ERA - Intellect Vidhya

Understanding Personality Rights in MEME ERA

What do personality rights entail? Before we delve into the recent legal disputes, let’s first grasp the concept of personality rights. In basic terms, personality rights (also referred to as publicity rights) refer to the rights that an individual has to manage the commercial use of their name, image, likeness, or other distinctive aspects of their identity. These rights hold great significance for celebrities, as their public image often holds substantial commercial worth. The Growing Importance of Personality Rights in India: Striking a Balance Between Safeguarding Celebrities and Preserving Freedom of Expression India has witnessed a notable increase in legal cases concerning the rights of individuals, especially those in the public eye such as celebrities and media personalities. These cases have ignited discussions about finding a balance between an individual’s personal rights and the essential right to freedom of expression. Let’s delve into three recent cases that have significantly influenced India’s perspective on personality rights. The Jackie Shroff Saga In May 2024, Bollywood actor Jackie Shroff took legal action to safeguard his identity, voice, images, and his well-known catchphrase “Bhidu” (a popular slang term for friend in Mumbai) against any unauthorised usage. The decision made by the Delhi High Court was intriguing as it took into account not only Shroff’s rights, but also other relevant factors. The court declined to remove a YouTuber’s parody video that cleverly utilised Shroff’s persona. The judge acknowledged the artistic nature of these videos and their potential as a source of income for young creators. This decision demonstrated a growing recognition among courts of the significance of online content creation and meme culture, particularly among younger individuals. Anil Kapoor’s Case: In a previous incident, Anil Kapoor, another renowned actor, found himself in a legal battle for comparable motives. In this instance, the court examined personality rights from a unique perspective – as a means of safeguarding a celebrity’s livelihood. The court emphasised the potential impact on a celebrity’s income from endorsements and other business deals when their image or voice is used without permission. They likened it to piracy, implying that exploiting a celebrity’s persona could be akin to robbing them of their earnings. India TV and Aap Ki Adalat: In May 2024, a highly debated incident unfolded, centering around Rajat Sharma, a prominent TV journalist, and his show “Aap Ki Adalat” (Your Court). A satirist, Ravindra Kumar Choudhary, has been using the names “Jhandiya TV” (a play on words meaning “Depressing TV”) and “Baap ki Adalat” (Father’s Court) in his content. The court ruled that Choudhary must cease using these names, as they were found to violate India TV’s trademarks and Sharma’s rights to his own identity. This decision caused concern among individuals who value free speech, as they feared it could potentially hinder the creation of parodies or the ability to comment on public figures. Why is this relevant to you? You may be curious about the significance of these celebrity court cases for everyday individuals. Allow me to explain: 1. Impact on Content Creation: These cases have an influence on the type of content that creators are able to produce. If courts become more stringent, it could potentially pose challenges for creating parodies or offering commentary on public figures. 2. Online Content: Numerous young individuals generate income by producing online content. These decisions have a significant impact on the actions and content creators can take in their videos or posts. 3. Public Debate: In a democracy, it’s crucial to have the freedom to engage in discussions and even poke fun at public figures. These cases have a significant impact on the extent to which we are able to exercise our freedom. What comes after this? As India grapples with these intricate matters, here are a few suggestions that could contribute to establishing a more equitable system: 1. Improved Guidelines: It is important for courts to establish more precise rules when it comes to striking a balance between protecting personality rights and upholding free speech, particularly in the context of parodies and satire. 2. Caution in Issuing Court Orders: It is important for courts to exercise caution when issuing orders that restrict content, ensuring that both sides of the story are heard. 3. Recognising Varied Uses: It’s important to distinguish between utilising someone’s image for financial gain and using it for the purpose of commentary or critique. It is important for courts to acknowledge and understand this distinction. 4. Public Interest: Courts must consider the potential value of allowing commentary on public

Read More »
Understanding Derivative Works Legal Definitions and Implications in India

Understanding Derivative Works: Legal Definitions and Implications in India

In the realm of intellectual property rights, the concept of derivative works holds significant importance, particularly in the context of copyright law. A derivative work is a creation that is based on or derived from an original copyrighted work, thereby giving rise to a new work with its own set of rights and obligations. In India, the legal framework governing derivative works is outlined in the Copyright Act, 1957, and its subsequent amendments. Definition of Derivative Works As per the Indian Copyright Act, a derivative work is defined as a work that is created by adapting or translating an original literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work. This includes, but is not limited to, adaptations in the form of cinematographic films, sound recordings, translations, abridgments, condensations, and arrangements. Types of Derivative Works Derivative works can take various forms, depending on the nature of the original work and the creative process involved. Some common types of derivative works include: 1. Literary Derivative Works:    – Translations of novels, poems, or plays into different languages    – Abridgments or condensations of longer literary works    – Sequels, prequels, or spin-offs based on original stories or characters 2. Dramatic Derivative Works:    – Film adaptations of plays or novels    – Stage musicals based on literary works or films 3. Musical Derivative Works:    – Cover versions or remixes of existing songs    – Arrangements or transcriptions of musical compositions for different instruments or ensembles 4. Artistic Derivative Works:    – Sculptures or paintings based on existing works of art    – Photographic reproductions or digital manipulations of artworks 5. Software Derivative Works:    – Modifications or enhancements to existing computer programs    – New software applications built upon existing code libraries or frameworks Legal Implications The creation of a derivative work requires permission from the copyright owner of the original work, unless it falls under the exceptions provided by the fair use or fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act. Case Study The adaptation of Chetan Bhagat’s novel “Five Point Someone” into the hugely popular film “3 Idiots” generated significant controversy. While the movie was a commercial and critical success, it faced backlash for deviating substantially from the original novel’s narrative and themes. Critics argued that by taking a broader, more mainstream approach, the film oversimplified the novel’s critique of the Indian education system and the struggles of IIT students. They accused the filmmakers of exploiting Bhagat’s work for commercial gain while failing to accurately represent its essence. There were also concerns about the portrayal of certain characters, like the entirely new character of Rancho, and the exaggerated depiction of IIT life and the education system. Despite these criticisms, “3 Idiots” sparked conversations about educational reforms and the pursuit of passion over societal expectations. However, the controversy highlighted the challenges of adapting works that tackle sensitive social issues, and the need for faithful and respectful representations of the source material. Implications and Considerations The concept of derivative works has far-reaching implications in various creative industries, including literature, music, film, art, and software development. It is crucial for creators and authors to understand the legal framework surrounding derivative works to avoid potential infringement issues and to protect their intellectual property rights effectively. When creating a derivative work, it is advisable to obtain proper licenses or permissions from the original copyright owners to ensure compliance with the law. Additionally, consulting with legal professionals or intellectual property experts can provide valuable guidance on navigating the complexities of derivative works and ensuring that the creative process remains within the bounds of the law. It is also important to note that the boundaries between original works and derivative works can sometimes be blurred, particularly in cases where the derivative work incorporates substantial new creative elements or transforms the original work in a significant way. In such cases, the derivative work may be considered a separate, original creation, subject to its own copyright protection. Conclusion In conclusion, derivative works play a vital role in the creative ecosystem, fostering adaptation, innovation, and cultural exchange. However, it is essential to strike a balance between encouraging creativity and protecting the rights of original authors. The Indian Copyright Act provides a comprehensive legal framework for regulating derivative works, ensuring that the rights of both the original creators and the authors of derivative works are safeguarded. By understanding the legal nuances and adhering to the principles of fair use and proper attribution, creators can navigate the realm of derivative works while respecting intellectual property rights.

Read More »
Filing a Trademark for a Restaurant in India – A step by step Guide

Filing a Trademark for a Restaurant in India – A step by step Guide

Filing a trademark is crucial for protecting your restaurant’s brand identity, name, and logo from potential infringement or misuse by others. In India, trademarks are governed by the Trademarks Act, 1999, and the process of registration is overseen by the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks (CGPDTM). Step 1: Conduct a Trademark Search Before filing for a trademark, it is essential to conduct a comprehensive search to ensure that your desired mark is not already registered or closely resembling an existing trademark. This search can be done through the CGPDTM’s online database or with the assistance of a trademark attorney or agent. A thorough search helps avoid potential conflicts and legal complications down the line. Step 2: Determine the Appropriate Classes Trademarks are classified into different classes based on the goods or services they represent. Restaurants primarily fall under Class 43, which includes “services for providing food and drink; temporary accommodation.” However, depending on the offerings, restaurants may also consider filing in other related classes. Additionally Relevant Classes for Restaurants: Filing in multiple classes is recommended if your restaurant offers a diverse range of products or services beyond just food and beverages. Step 3: Prepare the Application Once you have determined that your desired mark is available, you can proceed with the application process. The trademark application can be filed online through the ipindia.gov.in website, which serves as the official portal for filing all kinds of intellectual property applications in India. Alternatively, you can opt for offline filing by sending a physical copy of the application. The prescribed form for filing a trademark application is called TM-A. The application should include: Step 4: Submit the Required Documents Along with the application form, you must submit the following documents: Step 5: Pay the Applicable Fees The fees for filing a trademark application in India vary based on the number of classes and the mode of filing (online or physical). For a single class in the online filing mode, the fee is currently INR 4,500 for individuals and startups/ MSMEs  and INR 9,000 for others. Additional fees apply for each additional class. For example, if filing in two classes, the fee would be INR 9,000 for individuals/startups and INR 18,000 for others. Step 6: Examination and Publication After submission, the application will undergo a formal and substantive examination by the appropriate trademark registry. The formal examination checks if the application meets all the necessary requirements, while the substantive examination assesses if the mark is distinctive, not deceptive, and not conflicting with existing trademarks. If the mark meets all the requirements, it will be published in the Trademarks Journal for opposition. This is an opportunity for any interested parties to oppose the registration of the mark within four months from the date of publication. If no opposition is filed or if the opposition is unsuccessful, the mark will proceed to registration. Step 7: Registration and Renewal If the application is successful, the trademark will be registered, and a registration certificate will be issued by the Trademark Registry. Trademarks in India are valid for 10 years from the date of filing and can be renewed indefinitely for successive 10-year periods by paying the prescribed renewal fees.It is essential to keep track of the renewal deadlines and file for renewal well in advance to avoid the lapse of your trademark registration. Additional Considerations: By following these steps and complying with the Trademarks Act, 1999, you can successfully register a trademark for your restaurant in India, safeguarding your brand and establishing a strong market presence.

Read More »