In a matter closely tracked by patent attorneys and the aviation sector for some years now, the Chennai Patent Office last week finally issued its decision on the opposition filed by Jet Airways and the UK-based Contour Airspace Ltd in favour of the patent applicant, i.e., Virgin Atlantic Airways.

You can download and read the 128-page decision here. This case, as you will gather, involves a complex series of events, including the filing of two oppositions, and a parallel re-examination proceeding. The patent application itself related to passenger seats for use in aircraft, among other things.The patent office eventually decided in favour of Virgin, with a catchphrase of an observation that the invention involved “concept level rethinking”. (I have never encountered this phrase in patent parlance before, but I am confident it will be enthusiastically taken up by patent attorneys across the country in future defences of patentability.)While we have not as yet had an opportunity to study the decision in detail, by way of a quick snapshot of the timeline and issues involved:

• Application: Virgin filed a patent application in India via the National Phase in 2004 for a passenger seat and related claims.
• Opposition: In July 2007, by when the application came up for examination, Jet filed a pre-grant opposition (under section 25(1) of the Patents Act) on grounds that Virgin’s application was anticipated and obvious.
• Amendment: Virgin also amended its application in the interim, in response to the First Examination Report issued by the Patent Office. This came up as an issue, in context of the closing phrase of section 25(1), i.e., “…but on no other ground and the Controller shall, if requested by such person for being heard, hear him and dispose of such representation…”
• The semantics of claim construction are tested here, pivoting around equivalence (or difference) between the terms “characterized by (in that)” and “wherein”. This debate (in the decision) also tests the quality of the manual of patent and procedure.
• A new citation was also introduced mid-way in the course of the hearings, requiring the IPO to adjudicate upon whether this was introduced in good faith or otherwise.
• The first pre-grant opposition (filed by Jet) was rejected, and the patent application was sent for re-examination under section 59(1), dealing with the amendment of application or specification.
• Meanwhile, the manual of patent office practice and procedure was finalised, and thereafter, in October 2010, a second pre-grant opposition was filed by Contour Airspace on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
• A postal delay in the receipt of an “expert report” submitted by the second opponent invited a debate and an adjournment.
• The final of six hearings from March 2010 onwards was held on 12 October 2011, and the decision was signed dated 24 November 2011.