Carlyle-backed Hexaware has told a U.S. forum that the inventions it is accused of infringing, as alleged by Natsoft, are not patentable under U.S. law. The move pushes the dispute beyond a simple claim of copying and into a wider legal fight over whether the asserted patents meet basic requirements for protection.
What Hexaware is arguing
Hexaware’s central contention is that the technologies described in Natsoft’s patents should not have been granted in the first place. That argument typically targets the legal standards that define what can be patented in the United States — namely whether the claimed inventions satisfy statutory requirements such as patent-eligible subject matter, novelty and non-obviousness, and adequate description and enablement.
In practice, this kind of defense can take several forms: asking a court to rule the patents invalid as a matter of law, seeking to have the U.S. Patent Office re-examine the claims, or combining invalidity defenses with arguments that Hexaware did not infringe even if some claims survive. By asserting non-patentability, Hexaware aims to strip Natsoft’s case of its legal foundation rather than only disputing whether it used the technology.
Why patentability matters
- Legal bar to enforcement: If a court or the Patent Office finds a patent invalid, the patent holder loses the right to exclude others, which ends that particular enforcement effort.
- Financial stakes: Litigation and potential damages claims can be costly for both parties. Invalidating a patent can spare a defendant from licensing fees or settlements tied to asserted claims.
- Business operations: A finding of invalidity provides clarity for customers and partners who rely on the accused technology and can affect sales, contracts and product roadmaps.
How these disputes typically play out
Patent fights often follow several paths. Defendants may file motions to dismiss or for judgment based on statutory patentability standards. They can also ask the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to review the patent through administrative procedures that can lead to claim cancellation. Even where patents are not fully invalidated, parties frequently settle by narrowing claim scope or agreeing to licensing terms.
Given the costs and uncertainty of prolonged litigation, many cases end in negotiated outcomes. But when core questions about what constitutes patentable subject matter are at issue, courts’ rulings can have broader implications beyond the two firms involved.
Implications for the software and services sector
Challenges to patentability are common in disputes involving software, business methods or process-oriented inventions. Firms in technology and IT services often face claims based on broad or abstract descriptions of business processes and automation. Defendants argue that such claims are not the kind of technical advancements that U.S. patent law was intended to protect.
For private equity-backed firms like Hexaware, these cases carry an added dimension: investors and acquirers look closely at litigation risks and intellectual property exposure when valuing deals and planning exits. A successful invalidity argument reduces legal risk and can preserve operational flexibility.
What to watch next
- Whether a court accepts Hexaware’s challenge to the patents’ validity at an early procedural stage.
- If the U.S. Patent Office opens or advances any re-examination or review proceedings targeting Natsoft’s claims.
- Potential settlement talks or licensing negotiations if the parties decide to resolve the dispute without a final judicial ruling.
- Any appellate decisions that could clarify how patentability rules apply to similar software or business-method claims.
At stake is not only the immediate dispute between Hexaware and Natsoft, but also the question of how far patents can reach in an industry built on software, automation and services. The outcome will matter to competitors, customers and investors watching how intellectual property rules shape competitive advantage in the tech and services marketplace.