Home ›

Case Law of National Courts

Symbian Limited

in
Case Number: 
CH 2007 APP 0549
Neutral Citation Number: 
[2008] EWHC 518
Defendants: 
Comptroller General of Patents
Claimant: 
Symbian Limited

Mr Justice Patten:

1. Introduction

This is an appeal by Symbian Limited (“Symbian”) against the decision of the Comptroller General of Patents (dated 30 July 2007) refusing UK Patent Application No. GB 0325145.1 on the ground that the invention is excluded from patentability under s. 1(2) of the Patents Act 1977 (“the 1977 Act”). The Hearing Officer (Mrs S.E. Chalmers) confirmed the objection to patentability raised by the examiner which was that each of the claims related to a program for a computer and could not be saved by amendment.

 — Read more »

Astron Clinica Limited

in
Case Number: 
CH/2007/APP/0466
Neutral Citation Number: 
[2008] EWHC 85 (Pat)
Defendants: 
The Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
Claimant: 
Astron Clinica Limited
Claimant: 
et al

Introduction

1. This appeal raises an important issue, namely whether patent claims can ever be granted for computer programs. It is an issue upon which the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office ("UKIPO") and the European Patent Office ("EPO") disagree. UKIPO considers such claims are prohibited by Article 52 of the European Patent Convention ("EPCi").

 — Read more »

Aerotel vs. Telco

in
Case Number: 
A3/2006/1007
Case Number: 
A3/2006/1067
Neutral Citation Number: 
[2006] EWCA Civ 1371
Defendants: 
Telco Holdings Ltd, Telco Global Distribution Ltd, Telco Global Ltd
Defendants: 
Neal William Macrossan
Claimant: 
Aerotel Ltd

<h2>Judgment</h2> <p><em>Lord Justice Jacob (giving the Judgment of the Court)</em>:</p>

 — Read more »

CFPH

in
Case Number: 
CH 2005 APP 0009
Neutral Citation Number: 
[2005] EWHC 1589 (Pat)
Defendants: 
Comptroller-General of Patents
Claimant: 
CFPH L.L.C.

Mr Peter Prescott QC:

I. Introduction

  1. What is an ‘invention’? That is what this case is about.
  2. Some kinds of ideas cannot be patented at all – even if new and very ingenious. For example, you could not patent the plot of a detective story. It would not be considered to be an ‘invention’ under patent law. Nor could J.S. Bach have patented his Two-Part Inventions, and for much the same reason. It goes to show that patent law uses the word ‘invention’ in a rather special way.
 — Read more »

Decision 15495 of the Appeal Division of the Dutch Patent Office

in
  1. The conclusion of the Appeal Division as expressed in its decision of 16 December 1970 (BIE 1971, 54) that a computer which differs from another computer merely by virtue of its information content (program) is not to be regarded as a new product, cannot be maintained without some amendment considering recent technical and legal developments.
  2. A distinction must be drawn between computer programs as such, i.e. those recorded on data carriers and not directly addressable by a computer, on the one hand, and programs loaded into the working memory of the computer which are characterised by direct addressability, on the other.
  3. A computer with a directly addressable or working memory into which a program is loaded is to be regarded as a technically different device which is in principle patentable on the basis of program characteristics.
 — Read more »