SOFTWARE PATENTS
SOFTWARE AND BUSINESS METHODS PATENTS IN EUROPE
When it comes to software patents in Europe, there is quite a misunderstanding among companies as to what is and is not patentable under European law. Reinhard Knauer describes the situation.
Te confusion surrounding business method patents and, in more general terms, soſtware patents (called ‘computer-implemented inventions’ in the European Patent Organisation’s (EPO) official terminology) becomes apparent from the fact that Amazon’s 1-Click patent application is considered to be the most prominent representative of the species, despite not even remotely claiming a business method.
Tis application, which is cited in almost every article related to business method patents, was rejected by the EPO at first instance. An appeal is pending at the Boards of Appeal. A quick look in the file history reveals that the application was always considered by the EPO to claim technical, and therefore patentable, subject matter. Te rejection in the first instance was due to prior art.
Te above example shows the great uncertainty present in this field. While the Boards of Appeal of the EPO have achieved what no national office achieved previously—the development of case law that can be easily understood and applied by examiners in their daily work—it is nonetheless evident that the public and applicants have not fully followed case law developments, resulting in a lack of understanding of the current practice.
Te case law, as developed by the EPO Boards of Appeal, is best reflected by two prominent decisions: in Auction method/Hitachi and Two identities/Comvik. Other frequently cited decisions are Data structure product/Philips and Clipboard format/Microsoſt.
Te Hitachi and Comvik decisions effectively said that an apparatus claim or method claim that comprises technical features, such as computers or a networks, relates to patentable subject matter and so meets the requirements of Article 52 EPC. So, in practice, Article 52 EPC plays a minor role; the real hurdle lies in the assessment of an inventive step under Article 56 EPC.
www.worldipreview.com
On this issue, Comvik developed the idea that only those parts of a claim that contribute to technical character should be taken into account for the assessment of inventive step. Tis case law starts from an understanding that a typical business method application or soſtware patent application might have technical features and non-technical features combined in a claim, and so the difficulty is deciding whether in such a mixture of technical and non-technical features, there is sufficient technical contribution to justify an inventive step. EPO case law does not even distinguish between business method patents, soſtware patents or computer-implemented inventions patents in general.
A basic test to determine whether a claim is sufficiently technical is to determine whether technical objects can be formulated and whether this object is then solved by technical means. A typical technical object is to make an apparatus or a method more secure, faster or more reliable.
Tis case law was recently confirmed by a decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in May 2010 (G 0003/08). Former EPO president Alison Brimelow, who referred several questions on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal, received confirmation from the Board that there is actually no contradiction in the present case law and moreover that the current practice is in line with the existing law. Te great confusion in the field seems to be confirmed by the fact that the EPO’s former president and her consultants obviously had an improper understanding of the existing case law when referring the questions.
Te Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision gives hope for ongoing stability in the case law, which should allow interested parties to catch up and gain a solid understanding of the case law. It
is worth noting that this case law is already widely accepted outside the EPO. Recent examples include German Supreme Court decisions in Dynamische Dokumentengenerierung/ Siemens, which broadly harmonises German practice with that of the EPO, and in Windows- Dateiverwaltung/Microsoſt (both in April 2010).
Reinhard Knauer is a partner at Grünecker, Kinkeldey, Stockmair & Schwanhäusser. He can be contacted at:
knauer@grunecker.de
Reinhard Knauer is a European and German patent attorney. He is a partner of German-based law firm Grünecker, Kinkeldey, Stockmair & Schwanhäusser, with headquarters in Munich and offices in Berlin and Cologne. Grünecker, Kinkeldey, Stockmair & Schwanhäusser focuses on both prosecution and litigation. Knauer holds a diploma in electrical engineering with a specialisation in computer science and telecommunications. His work focuses on inventions in soſtware, computer technology and telecommunications. Knauer has litigated in Germany on consumer electronics, computer sciences and cellular networks matters.
World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2010
61
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112