In the In Re Bilski case, the US Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit has made a decision about what it takes for a process claim to be patentable.
On October 30, 2008, the United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit has made a much anticipated decision in a case concerning a business method patent, the so-called In Re Bilski case.
The decision is expected to be of vital importance to the validity of process claims in general, but especially to software/computer-implemented processes and business methods. Concurrently with the fact that the decision tightens up the conditions for getting approved typically software patents and business method patents, at any rate it also verifies that it is possible to patent that kind of things at all.
The decision discusses what it takes
Posted by: Ophir Tal in USPTO, software patent, Software, politics, Patents Opposition, Patents, Patently-O, Patentability, Patent Prosecution, Patent Legislation, patent, Internet Patent, intellectual property, cyberlaw, Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, COMPUTER CONTROLLED SOFTWARE INTEGRATED INVENTIONS, claims, CAFC, blogging on
Jul 22, 2008
Prof. John F. Duffy analyses at Patently-O the probable position of the USPTO towards software patents as presented in a series of cases. Specifically, patentable subject matter must result in a physical transformation of an article that is tied to a particular machine. A general purpose computer may probably not be regarded as a particular machine, and data structures and numbers (e.g. webpage rankings) may probably neither be regarded as articles nor as being physically transformed. Well – some news for the software industry.
The analysis is recommended as being not only thorough but also quite easy to read.
Victoria Slind-Flor reports at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=at.BdRGGrFkk&refer=germany that the leading large firms in the area of WIMax technology pool their patents in this area in order to ease using the technology in consumer electronics.
This step should reduce royalties, can anyone refer to such a step in other areas of
A recent study by Iain Cockburn and Megan MacGarvie regarding the effects of software patents on the software industry (200,000 software patents were issued in the in US in 2006 alone!) analyzes the changes in the number of issued patents in the different software fields, and the relation between holding patents and success in large firms and in start-ups. The study shows that the more patents are issued in a software field, the harder it is for small firms to enter the market (i.e. larger firms have it easier holding away competition), yet small firms that actually hold patents have larger chances to enter the market. The study thus underlines the importance of investing in patents at an early stage, even in the software industry.
Report:
The UK High Court has decided to change the practice of the English Patent Office to automatically reject patent claims when relating to computer program products. Read about it on IPKat . This may hopefully shift the UK and then the European preconception that the resulting products of computer programs "manufactured" by scientists and software companies are IP that is protection worthy. Of course, that does not mean that computer programming products claims are generally allowed by the UK Patent Office from now on - but it is better than nothing :-).
.jpg)
.jpg)
