On Tuesday, the Delhi High Court dismissed Google's appeal and levied a fine of ₹ one lakh for misrepresenting facts and failing to disclose information about the rejection of a patent by the European Patent Office (EPO).

Justice Prathiba M. Singh rejected Google's appeal against the Assistant Controller of Patent and Design's decision to reject its application.

Google had submitted an application seeking a patent grant for a technology titled "Managing Instant Messaging Sessions on Multiple Devices."

The High Court observed that Google's application was dismissed for lack of inventive steps. However, Google contended that the application had been abandoned before the European Patent Office (EPO).

"Considering the submission made that the EPO application was abandoned and coupled with the fact that the corresponding EU application for the subject patent comprised of not one but two applications, including a divisional application, and that they both were rejected for lack of inventive step, in the present appeal costs are also liable to be imposed," Justice Singh said.

It further said, "The appellant in the present appeal not only presented wrong facts to the Court but also failed to disclose the information regarding the refusal of the EU parent application as also of the divisional application that was filed consequently."

Google's application faced rejection by the Assistant Controller of Patent and Design due to a perceived absence of inventive steps. Subsequently, Google appealed this decision before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which was later disbanded. Consequently, the appeal was redirected to the High Court.

Upon review, the High Court upheld the original decision, stating, "The Controller is correct in concluding that the step proposed in the patent application in question lacks an inventive step and is evident to someone skilled in the relevant field."

"The sum and substance of the above discussion is that despite the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, the subject invention is not entitled to a patent, given the lack of inventive step. Thus, the present appeal is not tenable and is liable to be dismissed," the bench held.