January 28, 2008

A ruling by the UK High Court appears to have paved a way for expanded patent protection in the UK similar to that generally available by the European Patent Office (“EPO”). In November, 2006, the UK Intellectual Property Office (“UK IPO”) issued a “practice note” to state that computer programs alone generally did not constitute patentable subject matter. According to the Financial Times (UK, link below), the decision by the UK High Court noted that the UK IPO was “incorrectly applying the law in automatically rejecting claims for computer programs,” noting that the EPO allows applicants to patent computer programs “if they can demonstrate some sort of innovative technical effect.” The new standard appears to be whether or not the computer program makes a substantive inventive contribution, notwithstanding the format in which the program is distributed (computer disc, internet download, etc.). According to the IP Kat Blog (article link below), Judge Kitchin of the High Court recognized that it was “highly undesirable to have provisions of the [European Patent Convention] construed differently at the EPO as compared with the courts in the different contracting states,” further noting that “decisions of the Boards of Appeal should be highly persuasive.” Formal guidance has not yet been issued by the UK IPO on this matter.

Financial Times (UK) News Article: LINK
IP Kat Blog Article: LINK

0 comments:

Post a Comment

WIPO Press Releases

WIPO General News

Patent References

Click HERE to search issued U.S. Patents

Click HERE to search published U.S. Patent Applications

Click HERE to browse the MPEP (E8r6 in HTML and PDF, and E8r7 in PDF)

Click HERE to search patent assignments recorded with the USPTO

Click HERE to search Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (rev. 7/1/08)

Click HERE to browse Title 35 of the U.S. Code

Click HERE to view current USPTO fees

Disclaimer

Copyright 2006-2010, Mark Reichel. The Daily Dose of IP is my personal website, and I am not providing any legal advice or financial analysis. Any views expressed herein should not be viewed as being the views of my employer, Ice Miller LLP. Any comments submitted to this blog will not be held in confidence and will not be considered as establishing an attorney-client relationship. Information submitted to this blog should be considered as being public information, and the submitter takes full responsibility for any consequences of any information submitted. No claims, promises, or guarantees are made or available regarding the completeness or accuracy of the information contained in this blog or otherwise available by searching from or linking away from this blog.

EPO Updates

Trademark References

Click HERE to search issued and pending U.S. Trademarks

Click HERE to search TTAB proceedings (via TTABVUE)

Click HERE to search trademark assignments recorded with the USPTO

The DDIP Author





Mark Reichel
Reichel IP LLC

I am a patent attorney with Reichel IP LLC, where I concentrate my practice on patent drafting and prosecution, trademarks, and general intellectual property matters. I currently focus on the preparation and prosecution of medical device and other life sciences patent applications, and being actively involved in a number of local not-for-profit organizations.

Click HERE to view my full professional bio at Reichel IP LLC.


There was an error in this gadget

Subscribe/Feedback

Click HERE to join the e-mail list for my blog

Click HERE to provide feedback on the DDIP blog

Fellow Blogs/Bloggers

AwakenIP (Kuester)
Counterfeit Chic (Scafidi)
I/P Updates (Heinze)
Internet Cases (Brown)
Likelihood of Confusion (Coleman)
Patent Baristas (Albainy-Jenei)
Patent Docs (Zuhn et al.)
Patently-O (Crouch)
The 271 Patent Blog (Zura)
The Ice Loop (Ice Miller LLP)
The Indiana Law Blog (Oddi)
The Invent Blog (Nipper)
The Patent Prospector (Odom)
The TTABlog (Welch)