CONTENT SYNDICATION
*ATOM* FEED:

 

CONTENT SYNDICATION
RSS 0.91 FEED:

 

BLOGROLL OPML:

BLOGROLL OPML FILE

 

Search in IPJUR.COM

 

[Powered by Google]
  

BLOG@IP::JUR

Patent Attorney Axel H Horns' Blog on Intellectual Property Law.

 

INTERNAL LINKDisclaimer & About This Website

 

 

INTERNAL LINK Visit the archives

 

Thursday, May 17, 2007

 

UK SMEs Challenging UK-IPO's Policy on Patentability Of CIIs.

"[...] LONDON, May 17, 2007 (PR Newswire Europe via COMTEX) - A group of five small hi-tech companies are taking on the UK Patent Office at a hearing today challenging a change in Patent Office policy on the protection of computer implemented inventions.

The five companies, Astron Clinica Limited, Cyan Holdings Plc, Inrotis Technologies Limited, Software 2000 Limited and Surf Kitchen Inc have all developed technology which the Patent Office accepts is patentable. The companies' inventions range from skin imaging and printer drivers through to drug discovery, telecoms and micro-controllers which reflects the diversity of the companies involved. The only thing which links the inventions is that in part each of the inventions is reliant on novel software and it is the extent to which patentees can control the distribution of such software which is at issue at today's hearing.

Up until November 2006, law in this area was clear. [...]

Then in a surprise move, the British Patent Office announced that it would no longer accept claims which covered disks and downloads. The change places the British Office in direct conflict with the European Patent Office which also grants patents which have affect in the UK. Filing at the European Patent Office is however more expensive than filing at the British Office and any such patents tend to take longer to grant. The British Patent Office's decision disproportionately affects British industry which normally chooses to file first at the UK Patent Office. [...]"
Read EXTERNAL LINKmore ...

This time the SMEs appear not to be opposed to the general idea of patentability of computer-implemented inventions (CIIs) ...

Technorati Tags: EXTERNAL LINK

INTERNAL LINK[Permalink]

 

 

Astron was one of the few companies that were participating to the EICTA pro-software patents propaganda during the directive, they were present in Brussels during some patent exposition day.

Astron was demonstrating a firewire or usb2 device that was collecting data from a signal sent through the skin of someone.

I wonder what kind of software patent they have.
 
INTERNAL LINK# posted by zoobab : 17 May, 2007 23:28
 

 

 

Astron's core technology relates to software for analysing infra-red images of skin to reveal biological features. The company's original aim was better identification of skin cancers. It is now more focussed on devices to help persuade women that their skin is in terrible condition, and so needs all sorts of creams and potions to rejuvenate it.

The important point is that this hearing is specifically about "program claims". The companies bringing the appeal are very much tame clients of Beresfords', and it wouldn't surprise me if the law firm had taken on the issue pro bono.

Since the UKPO believes it is following the spirit of the Court of Appeal, that should win out over any arguments these people can bring at this level. But it's clearly being run as a test case, and it wouldn't surprise me if the question was appealed further to the High Court, and even the Court of Appeal.

The position should be clear. In the UK, the scope of the award of patents is limited to subject areas not excluded by Art 52. Computer programs on their own are not patentable, because this would widen the scope of protection beyond activities not excluded by Art 52. Inventions where the only novelty is new software may be patentable, but such patents must be drafted such that only activities not excluded by Art 52 are foreclosed.

This does not mean that people can publish anything they like: people supplying code in bad faith, with the intention that it should be used to infringe a patented process are liable for indirect infringement. But because program claims have been struck out, there is no infringement in publishing code in good faith which exhibits a patented technique, since this may have a number of legitimate purposes for research, dissemination of information, or for activities outwith the subject area identified by the patent.
 
INTERNAL LINK# posted by InventiveStep : 18 May, 2007 17:55
 

 

 

Does anyone know what this hearing is actually about? It's not in the hearings diary. Is it something other than an appeal of a decision by a UK-IPO examiner?
 
INTERNAL LINK# posted by David : 19 May, 2007 19:39
 
INTERNAL LINKPost a Comment

INTERNAL LINK Visit the archives

 

INTERNAL LINK< ? law blogs # >

 

INTERNAL LINKTechnorati Profile

 

BLOGROLL