Predictable Application Of Existing Technology To New Context Not "Inventive Step": Delhi HC Rejects Patent To Portable Vehicle Tracker

The Delhi High Court has confirmed an order of the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs refusing patent registration to "Portable Vehicle Management System" which claimed novel features like Real-time Monitoring of vehicle & Assistance, Anomaly Detection, Alert Generation, Detection and Masking of Faces, Portability, etc.

Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that all these techniques were already well-known and their combined application to vehicle tracking systems does not meet the "inventive step" requirement as stipulated under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Indian Patent Act, 1970.

"If the elements of a claimed invention are found scattered across different prior art documents, and their combination into a single invention is straightforward and predictable, then the invention may be deemed obvious."

The bench also made significant remarks with respect to the feature of Detection and Masking of Faces.

Claimant said their device utilises a front camera in the tracker, which captures traffic and path data, such as road conditions, street signs, and potholes. This data is processed to provide real-time driving assistance. At the same time, it detects and masks faces in videos to ensure privacy before transmitting the video to the user device.

Court said that incorporation of face detection and masking into vehicle tracking systems is only an application of existing technology to a new context.

"This is particularly true given the widespread recognition of privacy as a fundamental right. Given this legal backdrop, it is a natural corollary to consider privacy protections when designing new technologies. Ensuring the privacy of facial data and other identifiers would be a standard consideration for professionals in the field, based on both legal and ethical considerations. Therefore, incorporating face detection and masking into vehicle tracking systems to enhance privacy is an obvious step...the feature of detection and masking of faces in the present invention, while useful, does not meet the criteria for patentability. Instead, it represents a logical and expected application of well-established techniques to ensure privacy."

Hence, the High Court answered in favour of the Respondent-Controller of Patent.