Madras High Court Upholds Grant Of Virtual Agent Patent To US Company, Dismisses Flipkart's Challenge

In an order dated January 5, 2026, Justice N. Senthilkumar refused to interfere with the decision of the Patent Office, which had dismissed Flipkart's post-grant opposition and allowed the patent titled “Systems and Methods for Virtual Agents to Help Customers and Business” to continue.

Observing that the Patent Office's order was well-reasoned and free from legal infirmity, the Court noted, “The first respondent (Patent Office) has analysed the technical aspects submitted by the second respondent (Voicemonk Inc.) and made a detailed analysis in respect of all the claims by considering all the submissions made by the appellant (Flipkart) and the evidence submitted on their side while passing the impugned order rejecting the opposition.”

VoiceMonk filed the patent application in November 2016 for a system involving a virtual agent capable of receiving user inputs, identifying desired actions such as search, sort, select, or compare, and executing those actions through correlated steps to improve user experience on digital platforms. The patent was granted in May 2019 after examination and amendments to the claims.

Flipkart filed a post-grant opposition in 2021 seeking revocation of the patent on multiple grounds, including lack of novelty, absence of inventive step, non-patentability under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, insufficiency of disclosure, and non-compliance with statutory requirements. The Patent Office dismissed the opposition in October 2023, prompting Flipkart to approach the High Court.

Before the Court, Flipkart argued that the Patent Office had failed to apply correct tests for novelty and inventive step, ignored prior art documents relating to virtual assistants developed by companies such as Google and Apple, and wrongly concluded that the invention involved a technical contribution rather than a computer program per se. It was also claimed that the order lacked adequate reasoning and violated principles of natural justice.

Opposing the appeal, Voicemonk defended the grant of patent and relied on the detailed analysis carried out by the Patent Office, asserting that none of the cited prior art disclosed the specific combination of features claimed in its patent, particularly the correlation and execution of multiple user actions through a virtual agent.

After examining the record, the Court noted that the Patent Office had analysed each ground raised in the opposition, compared the claimed invention with all cited prior art documents, and recorded specific findings on novelty, inventive step and technical contribution.

Referring to the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court in Lava International v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson on the assessment of novelty, the Court held that the Patent Office had followed the correct analytical framework.

The Court also agreed with the finding that the claimed invention involved technical steps performed by a virtual agent and could not be treated as a mere computer program or algorithm barred under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act.

It also observed that Flipkart had been given adequate opportunity during the opposition proceedings and that the order did not suffer from procedural unfairness.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and declined to revoke the patent.

Case Title: Flipkart Internet Private Ltd v The Joint Controller of Patents and Designs

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 16

Case Number: CMA(PT) No. 9 of 2024

For Appellant: Advocate Sneha Jain for Advocate Madhan Babu

For Respondents: Central Government Counsel Subburanga Bharathi for Patent Office; Advocate Ramesh Ganapathy for Voicemonk Inc.