In the case of Flipkart Internet Private Ltd vs The Joint Controller of Patents and Designs [CMA(PT) No. 9 of 2024] the Madras High Court upheld the dismissal of the post-grant opposition filed by Flipkart against patent number 312437, granted in favour of Voicemonk for the invention entitled “Systems and Methods for Virtual Agents to Help Customers and Business”.

The patent relates to a virtual agent system capable of receiving user input (audio), identifying desired actions, associating actions with tags, correlating multiple actions (such as search, sort, select, submit, and compare), and executing them to produce a consolidated output, thereby reducing user interactions.

Following the patent grant, Flipkart filed a post-grant opposition under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act, alleging lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, non-patentability under Section 3(k), insufficiency of disclosure, and non-compliance of Section 8 of the Patents Act.

Flipkart assailed the rejection of its post-grant opposition primarily on the following grounds:

• Incorrect tests for novelty and inventive step were applied by the Controller.
• The impugned order was unreasoned, contrary to the principles of natural justice.
• The scope of the claims was excessively wide.
• The relevance of the feature relating to associating actions with “tags” had no technical bearing on the claimed invention and the claimed feature of “display an output page to the user, wherein, in the absence of the virtual agent, the plurality of actions would result in display of more than one output page displayed one after the other” amounted to negative claiming.
• Erroneous conclusion that the invention did not fall within the scope of Section 3(k).
• Objections relating to independent claim 1 and dependent claims 6 and 7 were not examined at all.
• Claims 6 and 7 required the presence of only one correlation (sequential, hierarchical, or lateral), and the disclosure of any one such correlation in the prior art was sufficient to invalidate the claims.

The core issue before the Court was whether the Controller had considered all relevant materials and applied the correct legal principles while rejecting the post-grant opposition.

Court’s Analysis and Findings

1. Novelty and Prior Art Assessment (Section 25(2)(b))

The Court noted that the Controller had undertaken a claim-wise and feature-wise comparison between the granted claims and cited prior art documents (D1–D3), including patents held by Google and Apple.

Relying on principles reiterated by the Delhi High Court in Lava International Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (2024), the Court affirmed that anticipation requires disclosure of all essential features of the claimed invention. The Controller’s finding that key features, particularly the correlation of multiple actions and their execution as a unified output, were absent in the cited prior art was held to be reasoned and sustainable.

2. Inventive Step (Section 25(2)(e))

For inventive step, the Controller examined documents D4-D7 in addition to earlier prior art. The Court upheld the Controller’s conclusion that neither individual nor combined prior art disclosed the claimed combination of features, especially the modes of correlation (sequential, hierarchical, and lateral).

3. Section 3(k): Computer Programme per se

Rejecting Flipkart’s contention that the invention was barred under Section 3(k), the Court observed that the claims disclosed sequential steps performed by a virtual agent, and, therefore could not be said to be a mere computer programme per se or algorithms because of their technical validity. Accordingly, the invention was held to fall outside the exclusion under Section 3(k).

4. Sufficiency of Disclosure and Section 8 Compliance

The Court accepted the Controller’s finding that the claim amendments made by the applicant were in line with the office requirement and demonstrated the applicant’s intention of securing the grant and making the invention applicable on a commercial scale

With respect to Section 8, the Court noted timely filing of Form 3 disclosures and condonation of delay, and that the objection was not even maintained in the hearing notice.

5. Procedural Fairness

On the allegation of breach of natural justice, the Court recorded that:

• Both parties were afforded adequate opportunity of being heard.
• The Opposition Board report and post-hearing submissions were duly considered.
• A detailed analysis was set out in the impugned order.

The impugned order was therefore held to be procedurally fair and reasoned.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Controller’s order rejecting the post-grant opposition.