PATENTS

Harmonizing Space Laws and IPR

The world post-World War II has seen tremendous growth in the field of space exploration. Ever since the launch of the first satellite in space, the Sputnik-I by the USSR followed by Explorer-I of the USA, space exploration has increased rapidly. But increased development in space exploration technology coupled with private participation and globalization has enumerated the need for clear reconciliation between Intellectual Property Laws and Space Laws as the need of the hour. However, as of today, there is no clarity as to the relationship between Space Laws and Intellectual Property Laws.

The Requirement for Harmonization

The need for harmonizing Intellectual Property Laws with Space Law lies in several recent developments. Firstly, there is an increased participation of private sector players in the field which was not the case in the 20th century. These private entities are generally far more aware and interested in protecting their property, both tangible and intangible, due to the increased opportunity of monetization and commercialization. This was hardly the case with the government organizations that dominated the scene until a couple of decades ago. Secondly, the rapid development of technology has opened up new business avenues in space transportation and Exploration. Space Tourism, for example, is now no longer a very distant dream. This could open up the need to deal with the issue of protecting IPs other than Patents and venturing into Trademark and Design protection in space. Thirdly, a lot of work in space exploration is now carried out simultaneously across the globe through mutual cooperation. The question arises as to whose jurisdiction would an IP developed in such a way come under.

Hindrance to Harmonization

The biggest issue with Intellectual Property Laws being harmonized with Space Laws lies in the fact that the former laws are municipal in nature, i.e. their jurisdiction and applicability is restricted to the territory of the sovereign that made the law. Contrary to this, Space Law is a field of International Law that is applicable to the Outer Space Region – starting roughly 100 km above sea level. According to Article II of The Outer Space Treaty, 1967 (one of the most important international treaties regarding space law) no sovereign state can appropriate Outer Space as its own territory. This essentially means that there exists no concept of State Sovereignty in Space.

Step Towards Harmonization

Presently, due to a clear distinction between the “Outer Space Region” and “An Object Launched in Outer Space” existing in the Outer Space Treaty, the state which launches the object in space will be the one that can register the object under an appropriate registry, and shall retain jurisdiction on that object once it is in space. However, no clear law exists on whether Intellectual Property Laws would extend as such in outer space. Also, the fate of an object created by any activity in outer space itself, eg. in the ISS, is also unknown.

In this regard, The United States is the only country that has made a move in clarifying its position in regard to IPs, specifically patents. The US Space Bill extends the applicability of American Patent law to objects in space. The European Union has also tried to take steps in this regard, which has led to confusion because of non-clarity.

Indian Legislation and the lack thereof

Like most nations, India also does not have legislation regarding the extension of Intellectual Property Laws to Outer Space. But with the increased participation of several private players from India, albeit in a limited capacity, the demand for a definitive legal provision in harmonizing space law and IPR Law gains more traction. Such a bill should comprehensively address all pertinent issues in this regard, for example:

A civilian control agency for all space-related activities except those of weapons development and national defense
Promotion of commercial use of space
Promotion of space tourism
Clarification and provisions relating to Intellectual Property Laws
Provision for licensing for entrepreneurs in space
Clear rules for all space-related activities, so that no adverse effects on the environment are caused
Clarification of Labour Laws in space etc.

Conclusion

Space is a frontier that has only started being explored. It is thus important to regularize and clearly define the rights, obligations, and procedures of humans in space. This is even more necessary when we take into account the great financial prospects that space exploration also holds. The above discussion thus clearly portrays the requirement for harmonization of Space Laws with Intellectual Property Laws and what aspects effective legislation should try to cover to deliver fruitful results in the future.

BY-

SAURADIP MUKHERJEE

2ND YEAR, LLB

ILS LAW COLLEGE, PUNE

PATENTABILITY OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE

In May 2017, the Kolkata Patent Office granted a patent to Apple on a ‘method for browsing data items with respect to a display screen associated with a computing device and an electronic device.’ When section 3(k) expressly prohibits patenting ‘a mathematical or business method or a computer program per se or algorithms’, how did Apple ace up the game? Let’s finally reverse engineer the dilemma of ‘per se.’

Software programs have become a necessary component of the world due to their greater effectiveness, secure interactions, and improved functionalities. Software innovation is becoming a more critical growth driver for businesses. India is significant in the world’s information technology (IT) market. As they may be accessed by users without payment and are subject to piracy and copying, software and computer programs are subject to fierce market competition. They are fairly sensitive to suffering unjustified economic loss. Furthermore, there is a severe risk of being outmoded relatively soon due to the intense competition, as the rivals might introduce a competitive product swiftly.

Why patent and not copyright?

When it comes to intellectual property protection for software, copyright and patents quickly spring to mind. Software programs are typically protected using copyright laws since developing source code and programs are equivalent to creating any literary or artistic work. The most effective approach to protect intellectual property is through a patent, but obtaining one for software requires meeting several strict requirements. Additionally, copyright violations and software piracy are not new in the digital age; with such sophisticated technology, it is possible to duplicate the complete program code. Additionally, the process, procedure, or discovery are not protected by copyright laws.

Computer programs are considered literary works under Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act of 1957. Still, the Act does not distinguish between source and object codes; both fall under the definition of a computer program’s literary work. However, the work must be original in order for software or computer programs to receive copyright protection; with that being said, fair use and reverse engineering of the program are permitted by the Act and won’t be considered violations.

Interpreting section 3(k) of the Act[1]

‘a mathematical or business method or a computer program per se or algorithms’ cannot be patented as expressly mentioned as not an invention under section 3 k. The term “per se” is not defined in the Indian statute, but according to the Computer Related Invention (CRI) guidelines published in 2017 by the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks, the term “per se” should be interpreted according to its standard dictionary definition. “Per se” means “by itself,” which means that you are referring to anything on its own, rather than in relation to other things, according to the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary.

A computer program is also defined as “a set of instructions expressed in words, codes, algorithms, or in any other form, including a machine-readable medium, that can cause a computer to carry out a certain task or produce a specific result” under Section 2(ffc) of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Therefore, the term “computer program per se” can be understood as words, codes, algorithms, or in any other form, including a machine-readable medium, that can cause a computer to carry out a particular task or produce a specific result on its own is not a patentable subject.

Revised guidelines-2017- Determination of excluded subject matter relating to CRIs

It was made clear that

“What is important is to judge the substance of claims taking the whole of the claim together. If any claim in any form such as method/process, apparatus/system/device, computer program product/ computer readable medium falls under the said excluded categories, such a claim would not be patentable. However, if in substance, the claim, taken as a whole, does not fall in any of the excluded categories, the patent should not be denied.”[2]

In order to be patentable, new software must actually come with a physical component. Wherever a combination of hardware and software meets the criteria for patentability and produces additional technological effects

As many as four business method patents were patented in 2017.

Business method patents- Facebook

Facebook claimed in its application that its invention is not only a computer program but “includes hardware limitation and provides technical improvements and benefits like checking privacy setting associated with the user profile .”The Chennai Patent Office accepted its application, and the patent was granted.

Apple’s media management program

Apple claimed that its invention delivers an “improved technical effect” and should be subject to patent. Surprisingly, Apple’s application was approved by the patent office and granted the patent.

Google’s information retrieval system

Google argued that its invention is not a computer program per se “but provides a technical solution to a technical problem of how to automatically identify phrases in a document collection” and obtained the patent.

Additionally, it is reiterated in a recent decision from the Delhi High Court that not all computer programs are subject to the bar under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. If computer programs show a “technical effect” or a “technological advancement,” they might be patented.

According to the Delhi High Court’s ruling in the case of FeridAllani v. Union of India & Ors. [2019][3], the majority of contemporary technologies, including cars, washing machines, and refrigerators, rely on computer programs. Computer programs are somehow included in all of these. As a result, present inventions will no longer be able to be protected if a computer program is denied just because Section 3(k) forbids patentability. The Court clarified that not all inventions based on computer programs are subject to the patentability threshold; only “computer programs per se” are. A similar decision was made in Enercon India Ltd. v. AloysWobben [4].

Conclusion

The technological solution that software or computer programs offer is evaluated in addition to the other patentability criteria described above. At the moment, four branches of the Indian Patent Offices may have slightly different practices in place, and the language of the law may appear confusing. Engineers, designers, developers, and inventors have a responsibility in such a situation to seek patent protection for software programs and, whenever possible, obtain legal precedents to increase the certainty around software patents.

BY-

SANDHYA BALAJI

4TH YEAR BALLB

CHRIST UNIVERSITY, LAVASA

[1] The Patents Act,1970 § 3(k), No. 39, Acts of Parliament, 1970 (India).

[2] IPINDIA, https://ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOGuidelinesManuals/1_86_1_Revised__Guidelines_for_Examination_of_Computer-related_Inventions_CRI__.pdf, (last visited August 4 ,2022).

[3] Ferid Allani v. Union of India, 2019 SCC 11 Del 867

[4] Enercon India Ltd. v. AloysWobben, No.109 of 2013.

Saree in Law

Saree is well-known Indian attire worn by women not only in India but around the world. It has captivated audiences since time immemorial due to its sensuality and versatility. A saree can be draped in numerous ways that highlight its versatility, culture, tradition, community, occasion, and beauty. Saree is an imperative part of the Indian tradition and culture. Whether it’s Madisari, a saree-draping style that was traditionally worn by women after their marriage in the Iyengar and Iyer culture of Tamil Nadu, or the Atpoure Shari, the saree draping style of West Bengal or Kappulu a saree draping style of the older women in Andhra Pradesh or the Nauvari worn like a dhoti in Maharashtra, the draping or tying style of an unstitched garment or 3.5 to 9-yard saree, varies by region, community, functionality, and, on occasion. In a world full of ever-changing fashion trends and fast fashion, Indian sarees and the traditional draping style remain constant. India has a treasure trove of saree styles and different ways of draping them that have even inspired the international fashion world.

Despite this India lacks a law regime to protect the saree draping styles. The Indian Trademark Act 1999 can protect the brands selling sarees while the prints and designs can be protected under the Copyright Act 1957 under original artistic work or the Designs Act 2000 for the designs aesthetically appealing. However, one may think to protect saree draping under ‘any other work of artistic craftsmanship’ under the Copyright Act 1957[1], but issues related to calculating the time, originality, and who to attribute the authorship arise. While the most obvious branch of IP the mind associates to saree is Geographical Indications, however, registered GIs under the Geographical Indication Act 199 like Bhagalpuri silks, Kanchipuram silks, Mysore, and Muga silks, which are world-famous as fabrics associated primarily with sarees. Further, saree draping is fundamentally considered a process or an activity, which may lead one to the domain of patent protection but due to the activity being in the public domain since time immemorial protection under the Indian Patent Act 1970 is not possible for saree draping.

It can thus be concluded the present IP regime in India including trademarks, copyrights, patents, designs, and even GIs mainly protect the brand name and logo, the weave and fabric, the manufacturing process, the unique designs, or a combination of all of these, and the community for protecting/maintaining the standards and nurturing the culture and tradition as GIs. But neither of the above talk or provide protection to saree draping.

How can India protect Saree Draping?

It is certain that the current IP regime in India cannot provide the much-needed protection to the myriad of saree draping styles prevalent in a culturally rich country like India. In such a scenario, India can develop the lesser-known branch of Intellectual Property Rights known as Traditional Knowledge which further incorporates Traditional Cultural Expressions. Saree draping styles perfectly fit under the WIPO definition for Traditional Cultural Expressions[2], as tangible forms of expression – folk costumes. Saree draping styles can be envisaged as folk / traditional costumes worn by when and women of communities. Thus, a well-codified law to protect such traditional knowledge or traditional cultural expressions which are passed from generation to generation could help to protect saree draping styles in India. However, locating the owner of the traditional cultural expressions and the fact that sarees are commonly worn in Nepal and Bangladesh, proprietor and territory issues may be common.

However, India can adopt the economic right ‘Domaine Public Payant’ to protect traditional cultural expressions such as saree draping styles. According to this right, when the work enters the public domain after the normal period of protection expires, it cannot be used freely as in the case of normal free public domain. On contrary, it requires a royalty to be paid for the commercial use of the work.[3] Thus, any non-Indian who commercially exploits Indian saree draping styles would be required to pay a royalty or prescribed fee to the collecting society or equivalent. Till date, only 5-6 countries have adopted and incorporated this right and could be a feasible option for India to adopt to protect saree draping styles as Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expression. Saree is a prominent part of the Indian culture and a source of inspiration to fashion trends across the world. Protecting the different traditional ways of draping a saree is in fact an essential way to protect the diverse culture and traditions in India.

[1] Section 2 (c)(iii)

[2] https://www.wipo.int/tk/en/folklore/

[3] https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000143960

Covid-19 Vaccination & Patent

INTRODUCTION

Patent Law is mainly concerned with balancing public and private interests while concentrating on the economic development. Protection of patents is a crucial pre-requisite for private investment in research and development sector which is necessary in growth of Pharmaceutical interest. In this dark decade of World’s history, during the outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus, could excessive patent protection adversely affect public interest involved in promotion of public health, safety as well as welfare of the society at large?

What are Patents?

Patents may be defined as the exclusive rights ‘limited by time’ in exchange of new and useful inventions. These rights are granted by the Government to the inventor as a reward for disclosing his invention to the public. A monopoly of the patent is the reward of the inventor. Patent rights are ‘the negative set of rights’ which exclude others from practicing the invention. Doing so, would call for patent infringement which could be prosecuted in appropriate court of Law.

IP Rights Waiver in Covid-19 Vaccines:

Since every right comes with a set of corresponding duty or liability, wavering of patents could prove to be as a big step towards ending vaccine inequality among high-income and low income nations. While there is high concentrated production in these developed countries, the manufacture of covid-19 vaccines in low or mid-income countries occurs through licensing or technology transfer agreements. Since, compulsory licensing is a lengthy process, temporary waivering of patents would serve as a better option addressing as well as controlling the health crisis in the world.

Possible effects of Patent Waiver

This would open up the space for rapid manufacture and production of covid-19 vaccines which could serve as an immediate relief and improve availability of vaccines in low-income nations. Many developed nations including the U.S (The largest pharmaceutical industry), France and New Zealand had previously opposed Patent waiver, are now extending support to India and South Africa at WTO negotiation table.

Adv. PRANITA MAKASARE

Bsc.(HONS) Agri, LLB, LLM

Artificial Intelligence and Patent Law

Introduction:

Artificial Intelligence. Never have two words fanned the flames of curiosity of a generation of individuals since the birth of the Technological era. Artificial Intelligence, as the term itself suggests, refers to the constellation of technologies that enable machines to act with a level of higher intelligence emulating the human capabilities of sense, comprehension, computation and processed action[1]. Given the great innovative leap offered by Artificial Intelligence, it is rather surprising to hear about there being very few / virtually no laws regarding working, definition, boundaries and patenting of the same. In this Article, we shall deal with the contentious relation of Artificial Intelligence and Patent Law.

What is Artificial Intelligence?

Artificial Intelligence as a concept has been prevalent for centuries. Since the time of the Ancient Greeks and Romans when an “automaton” showcasing human tendencies was discussed to the era of explosion in Science innovation and fiction of the late 19^th century early 20^th century. However, the term Artificial Intelligence was first mentioned in the now landmark 1956 conference at Dartmouth College. It was here that the leading minds of America in the technological fields came to discuss, put forward and deliberate on Artificial Intelligence and its role in those times. Renowned British mathematician and cryptographer Alan Turing was one of the earliest proponents of Artificial Intelligence, even coming up with a test known as “Turing Test” to determine whether the test subject was human or Artificial Intelligence. Despite the human race having conceptualised the possibility of Artificial Intelligence ages ago, we still haven’t been able to properly define the exact boundaries of the term. This has been both a boon and a curse. It is a boon for it helps us grow and innovate every day with utmost freedom. It is a curse however as well for there lies no regulation or protection under the modern laws for the same, as seen specially in developing and under developed countries.

Patenting of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning:

If we are to momentarily don the hat of historians, we will notice a batch of interesting points in time period of the modern era. This is specially seen in the last century wherein the term “Patent” and “Intellectual Property” has gained significant traction. The time gap between the next great leap in the field of technology has begun to shrink rapidly. This can be seen especially in the area of Artificial Intelligence and Machine learning. Both these areas have seen one of the fastest growths, specifically in regards to their learning and use in developing nations in Asia and Africa. However, to protect such innovations, we have seen an advent in the areas of Patent Law, specifically in developed regions of the world. We can see the difference in development of patent protection of Artificial Intelligence as follows:

United States of America:

The United States of America is one of the leading developers in the field of Artificial Intelligence innovation and creation. Title 35 of the United States Code, Subject 101 (35 USC § 101) deals with the question of patentability. The wide scope offered was seen as a manner to boost business and technological growth. However, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in the landmark judgement of Alice Corporation Private Limited V/s CLS Bank International stated that patent claims directed towards subject matters pertaining to functions performed by any person showcasing an ordinary mental process or by a human being using a pen and paper and without showing any significant growth in the requisite “inventive step” would be denied. The two steps of Alice, despite being primarily for software, have been applied to Artificial Intelligence as well.

The above test was applied in the Blue Spike LLC v. Google Inc. and has subsequently lead to increased polarisation in the critical analysis of the Alice judgement. One of the biggest criticisms against the Alice judgement has been its oversimplification in deciding whether a particular subject must be patented or not. The two step process while seemingly made to ease the patent litigation only caused more confusion for it could be interpreted differently by separate courts. Moreover, the terms “software” and “Artificial Intelligence” are in no manner to be construed to mean the same merely because both rely on computer language and algorithmic functions. Artificial Intelligence is far more inherently complex in nature as compared to everyday software and thus must be analysed and determined on a case to case basis.

European Union:

The European Patent Office (EPO) is one of the first Patent Authorities of the world to delve extensively in the field of Artificial Intelligence and Deep learning. We see this in the guidelines regarding guidelines for Artificial Intelligence and machine learning. The EPO is one of the few offices to actively attempt to differentiate between mere algorithmic mathematical modules of everyday use and that used in Artificial Intelligence which is based on computational methods and algorithms regarding classification, clustering, regression and dimensionally reduction, such as neural networks, genetic algorithms and support vector machines among others. Guideline 3.3.1 is specific only to Artificial Intelligence and machine learning and lays down relatively modern grounds for patentability of Artificial Intelligence. In 2018, the EPO held its first conference on the patenting of Artificial Intelligence.

India:

In India the term Artificial Intelligence is yet to be fully comprehended and looked upon. Its use and bare purpose is known only to the upper echelons of urban India and there hasn’t been a pan India move to educate and inculcate the very use, purpose and nature of Artificial Intelligence in all strata of society. This limitation of knowledge has been extremely painful in growth and innovation in the field of Artificial Intelligence. However, with the advent of technology and internet connection to the rural masses there lies a hope that advancements in Artificial Intelligence will not remain mere conjectures of science fiction but rather everyday use.

The Patents Act, 1970 under Section 3(k) bars algorithms and programmes per say with no specification regarding the area of Artificial Intelligence and machine learning. Even the Computer Related inventions (CRI), 2017 does not delve extensively in the direction of Artificial Intelligence. The NITI Aayog in a Discussion Paper has bemoaned the lack of patent laws regarding Artificial Intelligence as a separate identity and not one limited to software, programs and algorithms. Currently, attempts to patent Artificial Intelligence are done in the same manner as seen with software in India, by attaching it to some form of novel hardware and put them up for patenting as one entity. However, should India truly feel the urgency to be in the race of technological innovation, they must update the patenting and patent examination grounds as seen in the European Union.

Conclusion:

The world of Artificial Intelligence is the world of the future. As human kind grows increasingly reliant on Artificial Intelligence, there is an ardent need for the laws of innovation and protection such as Patent Law to increase the specificity of manner, definition and boundaries of the same. Artificial Intelligence, while having the same base material as software, algorithms and software must be held as a different entity. To equate Algorithms, programmes and software of everyday use as seen under Patents Act, 1970 with Artificial Intelligence is akin to likening protozoa and amoeba with that of early human beings. There lies an extensive amount of difference between the two. Mayhap it is time the law recognised the same.

SHREYAS SHETTY

BALLB-5th Year

ILS LAW COLLEGE, PUNE

[1] Page 12, NITI Aayog Discussion Paper on “National Strategy on Artificial Intelligence”

ABC of Patent pooling

Patent pooling has been observed to be exceedingly exercised when talking about the technological developments in major sectors. A Patent pool is defined as an agreement between two or more patent owners to license one or more of their patents to one another or to third parties. In simpler terms, Patent pool means accumulation of two or more patented subject matter in order to exploit the inventions for obtaining mutual benefits between the contracting parties or between third parties. Strategically, pooling of patent becomes necessary when an inventor gets stuck in complex technology which requires a complementary patent in order to achieve efficiency in the primary patent. Generally, these patent pools cover mature technologies. Patent Pooling is somewhat similar to a joint Venture with a primary objective of sharing one’s Intellectual property rights.

Some of the major players using the mode of Patent pooling are the Pharma and Telecommunication sectors. Many Pharmaceutical manufacturers took over the option of patent Pooling in order to make avail their drugs at an affordable price by reducing the Research and Development cost, amounting to low cost of selling.

Practically, however, Patent pooling has its own positive and negative consequences. The patent pools may have positive effects on competition and innovation by way of increasing efficiency of the developing technology in the concerned field, reducing litigation costs and reducing transactional cost occurred otherwise. On the other hand, under specific circumstances, patent pools may also lead to anti-competitive trade practices which ultimately distorts the competition.

Lastly, the viability of patent pools as a concept, in the endeavour to create better and cheaper means to achieve innovations, is quite sound. However, keeping in mind, such pool doesn’t raise any competitive concerns in future.

The Hunger Games: Catching Infringements

Due to large number of pending patent applications, increasing complexity of technology and Improper patent due diligence, often companies may ride towards undesirable consequences like Patent Infringement and losses in terms of damages.

Recently, one such similar challenge has been brought in front of Apple Inc. with an enormous Infringement suit for $1.43 billion by a Shanghai company Shanghai Zhizhen Network Technology Co. over Apple’s voice assistant technology Siri. Consequently, the suit also prays for stopping the manufacturing, using, promising to sell, selling and importing of products in china which comprises of the concerned smart assistant (Siri).

Usually such Infringement claims are based upon existing patents or any such active patents owned by the competitors. Simultaneously, such Infringement claims have often been resisted by challenging or invalidating the concerning active patent/s. Conducting a successful patent search (Freedom To Operate search or Validity Search) proves to be the best tool in challenging and defending the same in such situations.

F for Patent Family

Patent families have become almost an important element of any patent information. Fundamentally, patents do not exist in isolation and thus forms a part of much wider world. About 80 million patents have been published worldwide which would almost pile up to the height of Everest. Amongst these patents, its often the case that one invention is linked to others. These connected inventions are the indication of existing patent families.

A patent family is a group of patent documents that describes a single invention or set of related inventions. The patent documents belonging to a family are generally related to each other by one or more common ‘ancestors’, or originating patent applications. The documents in a patent family are often spread across a number of countries. Like a real family, these members inherit information from each other, creating a family tree of documents.

A patent family provides for a good insight about the worldwide status of an Invention. The patent family also helps as an indication of where the invention is protected. Hence the patent families could be very useful in understanding a bigger picture of the technology.

Important Issues around Bio Piracy & IP laws

Parallel to the protection of various Intellectual Properties, there exists a separate dimension of regime protecting the innovation, creativity and traditional knowledge flowing within the communities of indigenous peoples, tribes and those group of individuals remotely conserved and nourished by the states.

This new aspect has recently led me towards understanding existing mal-practices and instances revolving around the issue of Bio Piracy. Bio Piracy in simplest terms can be explained as an unauthorised use of any medical or biological Traditional knowledge (TK). Meanwhile, the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL), a database consisting of massive database on multiple traditional information has been assisting the stake holders of TK to prevent the instances of Bio Piracy.

Theoretically, TK plays an important role in the structuring of a developing countries with respect to strengthening cultural identity and the enhancing use of such knowledge to achieve sustainable agriculture, affordable and appropriate public health, and conservation of bio-diversities.

Some of the classic court battles and litigation which have highlighted the importance of preserving and promoting TK can be observed in the cases of Turmeric Patent case, Neem Patent case, Hoodia Patent case, etc. where even dominating pharma companies have been brought down in order to uphold the interest of the group or society nurturing the TK.

PATENT CHRONICLES SERIES (EP: 1): All new Sony Patent towards Play Station 5 UI

Coming across few stirring patents filed by the tech giants, it has been felt necessary for me to bring a whole new series of blogs to the notice which only talks about some of the stunning inventive patents filed around the decade.

The series should definitely hit with a triggering start which can’t be achieved without missing the launch of all new Sony’s Play Station 5 console in the rambling gaming market, especially during the Covid situation.

The brand new console had been giving a hint on the internet towards some evolutionary changes when it comes to gaming User Interface. Patent US 10675544, filed by Sony Interactive Entertainment long before, provides for a personalized user interface to access games available for a user account based on in-application behaviour.

Earlier, the game data such as points scored, hurdles crossed, enemies captured or overcome, game tools captured, spent or awarded, communications with friends, etc. were captured while playing a game on consoles. However, such game data could not be retrieved on re-starting the game from the point where the game was being paused.

Further, issues as to the frustration and lack of satisfactory user experience was being observed due to the non-retrieval of data such as losing unlocked special moves in arcade titles like Mortal Kombat X.

Thus the Sony’s invention claims to provide user with option to view specific behaviour metrics for the user before or during game play and to allow the user to view game state of a prior game play of the game played by the user without having to navigate through multiple menus. It would also be advantageous if the user is allowed to view game play of other users to allow the user to improve his/her game playing skills.

This recently published patent by Sony can be a game changer in the gaming market.