Are software patents something special?

Biotechnology and Software Patent Law: A Comparative Review of New Developments

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 131-152

  Bakels, Reinier B ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84882047855     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (145)

1. Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO (hereinafter: EBoA) 12 May 2010, case G 3/08 (Programs for computers).
2. See U.S. Supreme Court 28 June 2010, case 08-964, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 2010 WL 2555192 (U.S.) (Bilski v. Kappos).
3. European Patent Office, Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office, 2009, paragraph C.IV.2.3.6.
4. Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO (hereinafter: TBoA) TBoA 15 July 1986, case T 208/84, OJ 1987, 14 (VICOM).
5. Art. 52(2c) and (3) EPC.
6. USPTO, Examination Guidelines For Computer-Related Inventions, available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/pdf/ciig.pdf (accessed June 2011).
7. Instead of realisation, the word implementation may be used.
8. For instance, Section 60(a) of the UK Patents Act refers to the case that the invention is a product.
9. Board of Appeal of the Dutch Patent Office 19 January 1983, BIE (51) 1983, p. 104
10. M. Martin, 'The Patentability of Program-Related Inventions in the Netherlands', IIC (18) 1987, pp. 621-626.
11. Art. 83 EPC; 35 U.S.C. § 112. See also 'US 2161.01 Computer Programming and 35 U.S.C. 112, First Paragraph [R-5]', available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2161_01.htm (accessed June 2011).
12. Joachim Weyand & Heiko Haase, 'Patenting Computer Programs: New Challenges', IIC (36) 2005, pp. 647-663 (661).
13. E.g. there are 'Field Programmable Gate Arrays', chips that are configured by the user (rather than the manufacturer) to perform the desired function using a 'hardware description language'. The tool is (special) software, the result is hardware. See also e.g. Niklaus Wirth, 'Hardware Compilation: Translating Programs into Circuits', 31 Computer 1998, nr. 6, pp. 25-31.
14. See http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/(accessed June 2011).
15. Stuart J.H. Graham & David C. Mowery, 'Intellectual Property Protection in the US Software Industry in: Wesley M. Cohen and Stephen A. Merrill, eds., Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy, National Research Council, Washington: National Academies Press 2003, pp. 219-258 (231-232).
16. James Bessen & Robert M. Hunt, 'An Empirical Look at Software Patents', Journal of Economics & Management Strategy (16) 2007, pp. 157-189 (163-167 and 185).
17. http://www.neurologic.se/gauss (accessed June 2011).
18. John R. Allison & Mark A. Lemley, 'Who's Patenting What? An Empirical Exploration of Patent Prosecution', Vand. L. Rev. (23) 2000, pp. 2099-2174 (2109).
19. Promoting innovation through patents Green Paper on the Community patent and the patent system in Europe (presented by the Commission), COM(97) 314, June 1997, p. 17.
20. Reinier B. Bakels & P. Bernt Hugenholtz, The patentability of computer programs. Discussion of European-level legislation in the field of patents for software. Study commissioned by the European Parliament, 2002, available at http://www.ivir.nl/publications/other/softwarepatent.pdf (accessed June 2011).
21. Computer Aided Design/Computer Aided Manufacturing.
22. Knut Blind, Jakob Edler, Ralph Nack & Josef Straus, Software-Patente. Eine empirische Analyse aus ökonomischer und juristischer Perspektive. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag 2002, pp. 126-135 and 156-162.
23. E.g.: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (former US appellate court for patent cases, hereinafter CCPA) 8 October 1970, 431 F.2d 882 (In re Musgrave); CCPA 31 May 1973, 478 F.2d 1392 (Application of Christensen); CCPA 27 March 1980, 618 F.2d 758 (in re Walter). Seismic techniques are used to make images of the subsoil using artificial waves, typically for oil exploration purposes. In particular the interpretation of the enormous amounts of measurement data collected by seismic expeditions requires special techniques.
24. James Bessen & Eric Maskin, 'Sequential Innovation, Patents and Imitation', The Rand Journal of Economics (40) 2009, pp. 611-635.
25. Harold Irvin Dutton, The Patent System and Inventive Activity: During the Industrial Revolution 1750-1852. Manchester: Manchester University Press 1984, p. 24.
26. Eric Schiff, Industrialization Without National Patents: The Netherlands, 1869-1912, Switzerland, 1850-1907. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1971.
27. Fritz Machlup & Edith E.T. Penrose, 'The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century', Journal of Economic History (10) 1950, pp. 1-29.
28. Fritz Machlup, An Economic Review of the Patent System, Study No.15 of Committee on Judiciary, Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 80, available at http://www.mises.org/etexts/patentsystem.pdf (accessed June 2011).
29. Reinier B. Bakels, 'The Economics of the Subject-Matter Test in Patent Law', presented at the 'European Policy for Intellectual Property' conference in Bologna in September 2009, available at http://www.epip.eu/conferences/epip04/files/BAKELS_Reinier.pdf (accessed June 2011).
30. Brian Kahin, 'Patents and Diversity in Innovation', 13 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 2007, pp. 389-399 (390), available at http://www.mttlr.org/volthirteen/kahin.pdf (accessed June 2011).
31. Ilkka Rahnasto, Intellectual Property Rights, External Effects, and Anti-trust Law: Leveraging IPRs in the Communications Industry. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2003.
32. Think of connection facilities without which a product would be useless. See paragraph 3.3 'Interoperability', p. 5.
33. Garrett Hardin, 'The Tragedy of the Commons', Science (162) 1968, pp. 1243-1248.
34. Michael A. Heller & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, 'Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research', Science (280) 1998, pp. 698-701.
35. Interoperability is often related to standards. However, the latter concept is subject to diverging interpretations. Moreover, not all standards relate to interfaces, nor are all interfaces covered by standards. Therefore, we prefer 'interfaces'.
36. Michael L. Katz & Carl Shapiro, 'Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility', The American Economic Review (75) 1985, pp. 424-440.
37. For instance the distance between the pins of a plug.
38. An example is the usual 'Base64 encoding' of e-mail attachments that makes them over 30 per cent larger during transmission, see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3548.txt (accessed June 2011).
39. For example, the VHS video-cassette standard won from Betamax.
40. The 30-year-old compact disk technology with its linear encoding without compression was only surpassed by the MP3 standard in later years.
41. An example are the interfaces between modems (for example as defined by the ITU V.34 standard), that represent technologies that allow transmission speeds close to the theoretical limit on telephone lines with given properties, something that was considered technically infeasible for many years.
42. Tineke M. Egyedi & Knut Blind (eds) The Dynamics of Standards, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar 2008.
43. Kamiel J. Koelman, 'An Exceptio Standardis: Do We Need an IP Exemption for Standards?', IIC (37) 2006, pp. 823-843.
44. Pamela Samuelson, 'Are Patents on Interfaces Impeding Interoperability?', Minn. L. Rev. (93) 2009, pp. 1943-2019.
45. Anselm Kamperman Sanders, 'Are successors and patent assignees bound by FRAND terms and other obligations in IPR policies? Should they be?', in Hugh Hansen (ed.) Intellectual Property Law and Policy, vol 12. Oxford: Hart 2010 (forthcoming) to be available at http://fordhamipconference.com/publications.
46. Knut Blind, Katrin Cremers & Elisabeth Mueller, 'The Influence of Strategic Patenting on Companies' Patent Portfolios', Research Policy (38) 2009, pp. 428-436 (429): 'There is no agreed definition of strategic patenting, although most experts include the use of patents to block competitors and the use of patents in negotiations with other companies.'
47. Stephen A. Merrill, Richard C. Levin & Mark B. Myers (eds) A Patent System for the 21st Century. Washington: The National Academies Press 2004, p. 37, available at http://books.nap.edu/html/patentsystem/0309089107.pdf (accessed June 2011).
48. Ove Granstrand, The Economics and Management of Intellectual Property: Towards Intellectual Capital. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar 1999. See in particular pp. 218-237.
49. Anthony Arundel & P. Patel, Strategic Patenting, Background report for the Trend Chart Policy Benchmarking Workshop New Trends in IPR Policy 2003, available at http://www.proinno-europe.eu/events/reports/documents/TCW15_background_p aper.pdf (accessed June 2011).
50. In 1990 IBM wrote that it needed patents primarily for successful licensing negotiations with other patent owners: see http://www.progfree.org/Links/prep.ai.mit.edu/ibm.think.article (accessed June 2011).
51. James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, 'Lessons for Patent Policy From Empirical Research on Patent Litigation', Lewis & Clark L. Rev. (9) 2005, pp. 1-27 (14), available at http://www.researchoninnovation.org/lclr.pdf (accessed June 2011)
52. Federal Trade Commission, To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy, 2003, p. 30 and following pages, available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf (accessed June 2011)
53. Bronwyn H. Hall & Rosemarie Ham Ziedonis, 'The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical Study of Patenting in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, 1979-1995', The Rand Journal of Economics (32) 2001, pp. 101-128 (104).
54. Iain M. Cockburn & Megan J. MacGarvie, 'Patents, Thickets and the Financing of Early-Stage Firms: Evidence from the Software Industry', Journal of Economics & Management Strategy (18) 2009, pp. 729-774.
55. Jan A. Bergstra & Paul Klint, 'About "Trivial" Software Patents: The Is Not Case', Science of Computer Programming (64) 2007, pp. 264-285
56. Richard M. Stallman, The Anatomy of a Trivial Patent, available at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/trivial-patent.html (accessed June 2011).
57. Graham M. Dutfield & Uma Suthersanen, 'The Innovation Dilemma: Intellectual Property and the Historical Legacy of Cumulative Creativity', IPQ (8) 2004, pp. 379-421.
58. Knut Blind, Jakob Edler & Michael Friedewald, Software Patents. Economic Impacts and Policy Implications, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar 2005, pp. 81-83.
59. Art. 83 EPC, 35 U.S.C. § 112.
60. James E. Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, Patent Failure How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 2008, Chapters 7 and 9
61. Swen Kiesewetter-Köbinger, 'Über die Patentprüfung von Programmen für Datenverarbeitungsanlagen', GRUR (103) 2001, pp. 185-193 (191).
62. U.S. Constitution, Article 1 Section 8.
63. The European invention concept corresponds to the American concept 'patentable subject-matter'.
64. Art. 52(2c) and (3) EPC.
65. Axel Von Hellfeld, 'Sind Algorithmen schutzfähig?', GRUR (91) 1989, pp. 471-485 (476).
66. TBoA 15 July 1996, case T 953/94, nr. 3.1 (Georges).
67. Justine Pila, The Requirement for an Invention in Patent Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010, pp. 151-155.
68. E.g. recently: Court of Appeal 27 October 2006, case 2006 EWCA Civ 1371, nr. 9 (Aerotel/Macrossan). 65 BGH 17 October 2001, case X ZB 16/00, IIC (33) 2002, pp. 753-763 (Search for Faulty Character Strings).
69. In the current § 1 (3).1 PatG (German Patents Act).
70. In 2000, a new version of the European Patent Convention was agreed, which went into force on 13 December 2007.
71. Art. 27(1) TRIPS.
72. Joseph Straus, 'Implications of the TRIPs Agreement in the field of patent law', in Friedrich-Karl Beier and Gerhard Schricker (eds) From GATT to TRIPs: The Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Weinheim: VCH 1996, pp. 160-215, nr. 26-27.
73. Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation, Basic proposal for the revision of the European Patent Convention. Document MR/2/00. München, 13 October 2000. Art. 52 nr. 4 p. 43. Available at http://www.epo.org/patents/law/legal-texts/archive/epc2000/travaux.html (accessed June 2011).
74. Art. 32 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (hereinafter VCLT).
75. Art. 31(1) VCLT.
76. German Federal Supreme Court (hereinafter: BGH) 22 June 1976, case X ZB 23/74, GRUR 1977, pp. 96-99 (99) (Dispositionsprogramm): 'das einzig brauchbare Abgrenzungskriterium gegenüber andersartigen geistigen Leistungen des Menschen, für die ein Patentschutz weder vorgesehen noch geeignet ist'. English translation from: IIC 1977 pp. (564) (Disposition program). 558-565
77. David J. Kappos, John R. Thomas & Randall J. Bluestone, 'A Technological Contribution Requirement for Patentable Subject Matter: Supreme Court Precedent and Policy', Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. (7) 2008, pp. 152-170.
78. Reinier B. Bakels, 'Should Only Technical Inventions be Patentable, Following the European Example?', Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. (7) 2008, pp. 50-62.
79. The specific wording stems from: BGH 21 March 1958, case ZR 160/57, GRUR (60) 1958, pp. 602-603 (602) (Betting slip).
80. René Descartes, Discours de la méthode, 1637. Republished by Project Gutenberg, available at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13846 (accessed June 2011).
81. 'Welt des Geistes' instead of the 'Welt der Dinge'. RG 21 January 1933, case 271/1932, GRUR (38) 1933, pp. 289-292 (Multiplication table).
82. German: 'Anweisung an den menschlichen Geist'.
83. Ralph Nack, Die patentierbare Erfindung unter den sich wandelnden Bedingungen von Wissenschaft und Technologie (PhD Munich LMU 2002),Cologne: Heymanns 2002, pp. 245-247
84. Wilfried Elben, Technische Lehre und Anweisung an den menschlichen Geist im Patent- und Gebrauchsmusterrecht (PhD Frankfurt am Main 1960).
85. Gert Kolle, 'The Patentable Invention in the European Patent Convention', IIC (5) 1974, pp. 140-156 (151).
86. US Supreme Court 22 June 1964, 378 U.S. 184 (Jacobellis v. Ohio). In this case the judge decided that the 'obscenity' concept needed no definition, 'because I know it when I see it'.
87. Rolf Wank, Die juristische Begriffsbildung. München: Beck 1985.
88. BGH 27 March 1969, case X ZB 15/67, IIC (1) 1970, pp. 136-142 (Red Dove); BGH 13 December 1999, case X ZB 11/98, IIC (33) 2002, pp. 231-238 (Logic Verification).
89. BGH 27 March 1969, case X ZB 15/67, IIC (1) 1970, pp. 136-142(138) (Red Dove).
90. See e.g. BGH 18 March 1975, case X ZB 9/74, GRUR (77) 1975, pp. 549-550 (Buchungsblatt); BGH 13 December 1999, case X ZB 11/98, IIC (33) 2002, pp. 231-238 (Logic Verification).
91. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions (presented by the Commission), COM(2002) 92. Brussels, 20 February 2002.
92. Proposal for a Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions - frequently asked questions, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/02/32 (accessed June 2011).
93. Patents Court 21 July 2005, case 2005 EWHC 1589 Pat, RPC 2006, p. 5, nr. 14 (CFPH).
94. House of Lords 26 October 1995, RPC 1996, p. 76, BMLR 1997, p. 201 (Merrell Dow v. Norton).
95. Court of Appeal 27 October 2006, case 2006, EWCA Civ 1371, 2006 All ER (D) 346 (Oct), no. 25 and 75 (Aerotel).
96. Justine Pila, 'Software Patents, Separation of Powers, and Failed Syllogisms: A Cornucopia from the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office', Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 48/2010, available at http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&pdftype= 1&fid=8211319&jid=CLJ&volumeId=70&issueId=&aid=82113 17 (accessed June 2011).
97. EBoA 12 May 2010, case G3/08, nr. 7.3.1 (Patentability of programs for computers).
98. Reinier B. Bakels, 'Software Patentability: What Are the Right Questions?', EIPR (31) 2009, pp. 514-522.
99. S.Rep.No.1979, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 5 (1952)
100. H.R.Rep.No.1923, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1952). When the US Supreme Court cited this statement, it emphasised that '[t]his is not to suggest that § 101 has no limits or that it embraces every discovery'. U.S. Supreme Court 16 June 1980, 447 U.S. 303, 309, 100 S.Ct. 2204, 2208 (Diamond v. Chakrabarty).
101. John R. Thomas, 'The Patenting of Liberal Professions', B.C. L. Rev. (40) 1999, pp. 1139-1185.
102. See e.g. U.S. Supreme Court 1874, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 498, 507 (Rubber-Tip Pencil Company v. Howard).
103. From 1972 to 1998.
104. John Fellas, 'The Patentability of Software Related Inventions in the United States', EIPR (21) 1999, pp. 330-333.
105. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (US federal appellate court for patent cases, hereinafter CAFC) 29 July 1994, 33 F.3d 1526, 1544 (In re Alappat).
106. CAFC 23 July 1998, 149 F.3d 1368, 1373 (State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.).
107. State Street, 149 F.3d at 1373.
108. Nathan Machin, 'Prospective Utility: A New Interpretation of the Utility Requirement of Section 101 of the Patent Act', Calif. Law Review (87) 1999, pp. 421-456.
109. Noel D. Humphreys, 'Data as a "Tangible Result" ', Pa. Law (21) 1999, pp. JUN-50-51.
110. Michael J. Meurer, 'Business Method Patents and Patent Floods', Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y (8) 2002, pp. 309-339
111. Kevin M. Baird, 'Business Method Patents: Chaos at the USPTO or Business as Usual?', U. Ill. J.L. Tech. & Pol'y 2001, pp. 347-364.
112. John R. Allison & Emerson H. Tiller, 'The Business Method Patent Myth', Berkeley Tech. L.J. (18) 2003, pp. 987-1084.
113. Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences 28 September 2005, 76 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1385 (Ex parte Lundgren).
114. This handbook is an instruction for the examination of patent applications by the USPTO. It should reflect the state of the law, but it has no legal status by itself.
115. CCPA 6 March 1951, 188 F.2d 165 (In re Abrams)
116. CCPA 3 April 1951, 188 F.2d 377 (In re Yuan).
117. CCPA 14 August 1969, 56 CCPA 1381, 415 F.2d 1393 (In re Prater and Wei II).
118. CAFC 29 July 1994, 33 F.3d 1526, 1544 (In re Alappat).
119. U.S. Supreme Court 20 November 1972, 409 U.S. 63, 72, 93 S.Ct. 253, 257 (Gottschalk v. Benson).1
120. CCPA 30 March 1978, 573 F.2d 1237 (In re Freeman)
121. CCPA 27 March 1980, 618 F.2d 758 (In re Walter)
122. CCPA 5 August 1982, 684 F.2d 902 (In re Abele).
123. CAFC 12 March 1992, 958 F.2d 1053, 1065-1066 (Arrhythmia v. Corazonix).
124. Brief of Amicus Curiae Regulatory Datacorp, Inc. in Support of Neither Party, Bilski v. Kappos, 2008 WL 1842273, p. 25-28.
125. Dutch Supreme Court 20 January 1950, NJ 1950, 274, BIE (18) 1950, pp. 36-39 (Building-lines).
126. Board of Appeal of the Dutch Patent Office 11 May 1987, BIE (55) 1987, pp. 174-176 (Barcode).
127. Hans Beyer, 'Der Begriffder Information als Grundlage des technischen Charakters von programmbezogenen Erfindungen', GRUR (92) 1990, pp. 399-410
128. Andreas Wiebe, 'Information als Naturkraft - Immaterialgüterrecht in der Informationsgesellschaft', GRUR (96) 1994, pp. 233-246.
129. See CAFC 30 October 2008, case 07-1130, 545 F.3d 943 (In re Bilski).
130. U.S. Supreme Court 28 June 2010, case 08-964, 2010 WL 2555192 (U.S.) (Bilski v. Kappos).
131. Bilski v. Kappos, 2010 WL 2555192 (U.S.) at 8.1
132. See e.g. Brief of the Software Freedom Law Center As Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent, Bilski v. Kappos, 2009 WL 3167953.
133. See e.g. Brief for Microsoft Corporation, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., and Symantec Corporation as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent, Bilski v. Kappos, 2009 WL 3167955.
134. In the U.S., it is by no means unusual to refer to precedents over 100 years old.
135. 'Software patents' often don't relate to programming by itself, but to the encoding of information, as in the case of this patent.
136. U.S. Supreme Court 30 January 1854, 56 U.S. 62 (O'Reilly v. Morse).
137. U.S. Supreme Court 21 March 1966, 383 U.S. 519-536
138. 86 S.Ct. 1033, 1042 (Brenner v. Manson).
139. Gregory A. Stobbs, Software Patents. New York, Aspen Publishers 2000, Chapter 4.
140. 35 U.S.C. § 112. Comparable: Art. 83 EPC.
141. USPTO, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. § 2164.01(a) Undue Experimentation Factors, available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2164_01_a.htm (accessed June 2011).
142. See Section 3.5.
143. Bilski v. Kappos, 2010 WL 2555192 (U.S.) at 13.
144. Art. 27(1) TRIPS.
145. Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper & Row 1942, pp. 81-86.