Software patents in Europe: The technical requirement dilemma

Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice

Volumn 3, Issue 9, 2008, Pages 563-575

  Ballardini, Rosa Maria ^a  

^a HANKEN Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864850339     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17471540     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jiplp/jpn121     Document Type: Review

References (63)

1. R Sarvas, 'A software engineering view to the decisions of the European Patent Office concerning computer programs', Helsinki University of Technology, 2001, pp. 11-16.
2. IEEE Std 610.12-1990, Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology (The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, 1990).
3. K Beresford, Patenting Software Under the European Patent Convention (2000) 28-45.
4. IPR Helpdesk, Patentability of Computer Programs, 2005, http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org
5. EPO, Guidelines for Examination, Part C, Chapter 4 (2007).
6. R Sarvas, 'More Ambiguity in European Software Patenting', Helsinki Institute for Information Technology (HIIT), 2001, http://www-old.hiit.fi/de/core/MoreAmbiguityInEuropeanSWpatenting.Pdf
7. J Pila, 'Article 52(2) of the Convention on the Grant of European Patents: What did the framers intend? A study of the travaux préparatoires', 36 IIC 755 (2005).
8. See H MacQueen, G Laurie, C Waelde, and A Brown, Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy (1st edn, 2007) 508-535.
9. I Lloyd, 'Software patents after Fujitsu. New directions or (another) missed opportunity?', Case Commentary 1997 (2), The Journal of Information Law & Technology (JILT).
10. P Samuelson, R Davis, MD Kapor, and JH Reichman, 'A manifesto concerning the legal protection of computer programs', Columbia Law Review (1994), section 94.
11. DL Burk and MA Lemley, 'Designing Optimal Software Patents' in R Hahn (ed.), Intellectual Property Rights in Frontier Industries: Software and Biotechnology (2005). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=692044.
12. See also European Software Patent Statistics, http://eupat.ffii.org/patents/stats/index.en.html.
13. AL Guadamuz, The software patent debate. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 2006; 1: 196-206. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=886905.
14. See classification made in the Court of Appeal (England and Wales), Aerotel Ltd v Telco [2006] EWCA Civ 1371.
15. T 0208/84 Computer related invention/Vicom [1987] OJEPO 14.
16. P Leith, 'Patenting Programs as Machines' (2007) 4:2 SCRIPT-ed 214, http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol4-2/leith.asp
17. C Laub, Software patenting: legal standards in Europe and the US in view of strategic limitations of the IP systems. The Journal of World Intellectual Property. 2006; 9: 344-372.
18. T 0038/86 Text processing/IBM [1989] OJEPO 118.
19. T 0026/86 X-Ray Apparatus/Koch & Sterzel [1987] OJEPO 585.
20. GI Zekos, Software Patenting. The Journal of World Intellectual Property. 2006; 9: 426-444.
21. T1173/97 Computer Programs Product/IBM [1999] OJEPO 609;
22. T 0935/ 97 Computer Program Product/IBM [1999] OJEPO 609.
23. A Soininen, 'The Software and Business Method Patent Ecosystem: Academic, Political, Legal and Business Developments in the US and Europe' in A Soininen (ed.), Patents in the Information and Communications Technology Sector-Development Trends, Problem Areas and Pressures for Change (Lappeenranta University of Technology, 2007) 44-55.
24. T 0931/195 Controlling Pension Benefit System/PBS Partnership [2001] OJEPO 441.
25. As summarized in Aerotel Ltd v Telco, n 26.
26. T 0258/03 Auction Method/Hitachi [2004] OJEPO 575.
27. T 0424/03 Microsoft/Data transfer expanded clipboard formats [2006].
28. See W Cook and G Lees, 'Test clarified for UK software and business method patents: but what about the EPO?' Comments: [2007] EIPR 115-118.
29. See also V Salomon, Patenting computer software and business methods in the UK. Communications Law. 2007; 12.
30. WIPO Treaty on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights, Morocco, 15 April 1994 (TRIPs).
31. Manual of Patent Practice guidance for interpreting the Patent Act 1977, http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-law/p-law-manual/plaw-manual-practice/p-law-manual-practice-patent1977.htm
32. [1989] RPC 561.
33. [1991] RPC 608.
34. [1997] EWCA Civ 1174.
35. [2005] EWHC 2416.
36. [2005] EWHC 1623.
37. [2005] EWHC 1589.
38. D Bainbridge, 'Court of Appeal parts company with the EPO on software patents', Computer Law and Security Report 23 (2007) 199-204.
39. Aerotel Ltd v Telco, n 26.
40. A Howes, 'Disaster Pending? EPO vs English Court of Appeal on Excluded Subject Matter', 08/07 World Intellectual Property Report.
41. Aerotel Ltd v Telco, n 26.
42. Patent Act 1977: Patentable subject matter, UK-Intellectual Property Office, http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-law/p-lawnotice/p-law-notice-subjectmatter-20080207.htm
43. Astron Clinica Ltd and Others v Comptroller General [2008] EWHC 85 (Pat).
44. Autonomy Corporation Limited v Comptroller General [2008] EWHC 85 (Pat).
45. Symbian Ltd v Comptroller General [2008] EWHC 518 (Pat).
46. No decision has yet been take on the UK-IPO appeal. However, a statement confirming the Office intentions has been published and it is http://www.ipo.gov.uk/press/press-release/press-release-2008/pressrelease-20080318.htm
47. Bekanntmachung der Neufassung des Patentgesetzes (PatG), vom 16, Dezember 1980. Available in English at the 'Collection of Laws for Electronic Access' (CLEA) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), http://clea.wipo.int
48. Schutz von Computerprogrammen, http://www.dpma.de/infos/schutzrechte/verfahren11.html
49. BGH GRUR 1969, 672 Rote Taube. Available in English in 1 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 136 (1970).
50. N Hoppen, Software Innovations and Patents. A Simulation Approach (Ibidem-Verlag, Stuttgart, 2005) 21-26.
51. K-J Melullis, 'Some problems of patent law from a German viewpoin' on OJEPO Special Edition 2/2007, 13th European Patent Judges Symposium, Thessaloniki 12-16 September 2006, 184-199.
52. U Loewenheim, 'Legal protection for computer programs in West Germany' Berkeley Technology Law Journal, http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol4/Loewenheim/html/text.html
53. J Weyand and H Haase, 'Patenting computer program. New challenges', IIC, 2005, Issue 6, 647-663.
54. S Bechtold, 'Software patents in Germany. Current developments' (July 2000). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=240205.
55. G Kolle 1977: Technik, Datenverarbeitung und Patentrecht-Bermerkungen zur Dispositionsprogramm-Entscheidung des Bundesgerichtshofs, GRUR 1977-02, 58-74.
56. a edizione, 1999) 109-120.
57. ibid. See also C Le Stanc, 'Logiciel: trente ans entre droit d'auteur et brevet. Bilan?', Mélanges Linant de Bellefonds, LexisNexis, Litec. (2007).
58. P Mathely, Le nouveau droit français des brevets d'invention (1991) 128-140.
59. M Vivant and JM Bruguière, 'Protéger les inventions de demain', La Documentation Française 16 et seq. (Paris 2003).
60. 'Draft Agreement on the Establishment of a European Patent Litigation System' (16 February 2004), http://www.european-patent-office.org/epo/ epla/pdf/agreement_draft.pdf
61. 'Draft Statue of the European Patent Court' (16 February 2004),http://www.european-patent-office.org/epo/ epla/pdf/statute_draft.pdf
62. K Saito and R Sweeney, 'Assessment of Inventive Step or Obviousness in United States, Europe, and Japan'. http://www.law.washington.edu/casrip/harmonization/PDF/obviousness.pdf
63. D Lin, 'Research versus development: patent pooling, innovation and standardization in the software industry', 1 J: Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 274 (2002).