08-11/2008
2008-11-11
Patenting of business methods: The U.S. is approaching Europe
On October 30, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the United States issued a decision for a case relating to patenting of business methods. The decision can be regarded as a sign that the country takes a step closer to the European perception of what is patentable in this field.
During the last ten years the case ”State Street Bank” has been used as a benchmark for evaluation of patents for business methods. This states that everything that is "useful, concrete, and tangible" belongs to the patentable area – a quite liberal view compared to the significantly stricter practise applied by the European Patent Office, EPO.
The new decision states that method principles cannot be pre-emptively patented; the patentable subject matter has to be limited to a concrete application. The justification is that it would exclude the use of the principle in an inappropriate way. The decision also states that it is not possible to patent a method which is not tied to a machine or apparatus, or involves transformation of an article to another state or thing. It should be noted that the article does not have to be a physical object, but can be for example a data item.
To ensure that a method is patentable, a so-called machine-or-transformation test should be performed. The test has been used by the U.S. Supreme Court in a previous case and it has also been used as one of several tests for determining whether a claimed method belongs to the patentable area.
– Consequently, the drafting of patent applications for filing in the U.S. requires thoroughly prepared presentations of concrete method inventions so that they can pass the eye of the needle that the machine-or-transformation test represents, says Mikael Sollerhed, patent attorney at Ström & Gulliksson.
– However, it is not sufficient to add extra-features which links the method to any machine or apparatus, for example a computer. The determination must be linked to a particular machine or apparatus to reduce the risk of a method obtaining illegitimate protection.
Mikael Sollerhed is positive to the changing approach in consequence of the new case:
– It is both a welcome clarification of the boundaries of patentability in the U.S. and an approach that we Europeans can more easily relate to. Hopefully the new order will result in less arbitrary examinations of such cases in the U.S. Patent Office, USPTO. Until now, the outcome has often depended very much on the examiner who has been handling the case.
Please contact any of our patent attorneys to learn more about the possibilities of patenting practices of this kind.
2008-08-15
Ideon celebrates 25 years
Sweden's first and largest science park, Ideon Science Park in Lund, celebrates its 25th anniversary. The celebrations, which take place throughout the year, will culminate with three jubilee days September 28 - 30. Among other things, activities offered will include a guided tour of the Ideon area, an entrepreneurial day for high school students, a VIP conference, and a jubilee ceremony with Sweden's Crown Princess Victoria. Celebrations are geared primarily towards Ideon's 250+ tenants and their approximately 3.000 employees, yet also students and others interested in attending are welcome
2008-09-24
Expansion in Stockholm
Ström & Gulliksson expands in Stockholm and is moving to larger premises on September 29. The Office's new address is Karlavägen 60. Other contact details are unchanged:
Postal Address:
Ström & Gulliksson
P O Box 5275
SE-102 46 Stockholm
SWEDEN
Phone: +46 8 24 05 10
Fax: +46 8 24 59 01
E-mail: mail@sg.se
2008-10-30
EPO requests clarification of rules for patentability of computer programs
The president of the European Patent Office, EPO, has turned to EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal, EBoA, for clarifications on the rules concerning the patentability of computer programs under the European Patent Convention, EPC. The reason is the uncertainty resulting from diverging decisions of the EPO's boards of appeal. The president believes that clarification is necessary to enable the harmonization of case law in this field, and EBoA is in charge of ensuring uniform application of the EPC.
The referral does not question the rules of the EPC, which say that computer programs as such are not to be regarded as patentable inventions. Furthermore, it does not question current practice that allows patenting of technical applications of computer programs. However, guidance is sought on how these rules are to be applied. This means clarification on when a patent claim as a whole falls under the exclusion as well as more details about the circumstances required for including individual features relating to computer programs in a patent claim, that is, when these features are relevant for assessing novelty and inventive step.
– It is very good if this will lead to greater clarity and certainty about how the EPC is to be applied in this area, says Björn Andersson, partner and European patent attorney at Ström & Gulliksson. It will be easier to help our clients and for the general public to understand the legal rules regarding patentability of computer programs.
Please contact any of our patent attorneys for more information on patents and other forms of protection for computer programs.
Click here to read the news in its entirety. | |
| |
Latest news Would you like to return to the page with the latest news?
|
|
|
|