NIGERIA
ARE BUSINESS METHODS PATENTABLE IN NIGERIA?
Tiwalola Okeyinka ǼLEX
In Nigeria, intellectual property rights (IPR) are governed by the Trade Marks Act, the Patents and Designs Act and the Copyright Act. The trademarks, patents and designs laws are currently implemented by the Trademarks, Patents and Designs Registry under the Federal Ministry of Commerce. The body responsible for the implementation of the Copyright Act is the Nigerian Copyright Commission (NCC), which is under the supervision of the Federal Ministry of Justice.
Over the years, applications for IPR in Nigeria have been fraught with difficulties, such as missing documents and files and duplication of registration. However, the Nigerian Trademarks, Patents and Designs Registry is in the process of setting up its official website which will make provision for digital registration, hence minimising the challenges faced during registration. Only duly accredited firms and agents will be allowed access to online registration, searches and other operations in relation to registration of trademarks, patents and designs via the registry’s portal.
A debate has arisen in the country relating to the patentability of business methods, biological processes for the production of plants and animals and discoveries of scientific nature, which the act specifically lists as not patentable in Nigeria. However, the appropriateness of granting a patent for a business method tops the list of debates.
A business method may be defined as a collection of related, structured activities or tasks that produce a specific service or product (serve a particular goal) for a particular customer or customers. An example of a business method will be a system for verifying the authenticity of a product. A business method patent is a class of patent which discloses new methods of doing business. Business method patents are a relatively new type of patent and there are divergent opinions on their propriety. The patentability of a business method differs depending on the legal jurisdiction.
184 World Intellectual Property Review e-Digest 2012
The debate on business method patents is not limited to Nigeria but constitutes a current topic in other countries of the world. A case in point is the recent US Supreme Court decision in Bilski v Kappos, which has generated discussions and debates among IP experts around the world. In Re Bilski, the petitioners’ patent application sought protection for a claimed invention that explains how buyers of commodities in the energy market can protect, or hedge, against the risk of price changes. Claim 1 describes a series of steps instructing how to hedge the risk, and claim 4 places the claim 1 concept into a simple mathematical formula. The remaining claims explain how claims 1 and 4 can be applied to allow energy suppliers and consumers to minimise the risks resulting from fluctuations in market demand.
The patent examiner rejected the application on the grounds that the invention is not implemented on a specific apparatus but merely manipulates an abstract idea and solves a purely mathematical problem. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences agreed with the patent examiner’s decision and affirmed it. The Federal Circuit affirmed it in turn. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard the case en banc and rejected its prior test laid down in State Street Bank & Trust Co v Signature Financial Group Inc for determining whether a claimed invention was a patentable ‘process’ under the Patent Act, ie, whether the invention produced a ‘useful, concrete, and tangible result’, and held that a claimed process is patent eligible if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. It concluded that the ‘machine-or-transformation test’ is the sole test for determining patent eligibility of a ‘process’ under §101.
The Supreme Court, however, decided that while the particular invention in Re Bilski was not eligible for patent protection because it covered an abstract idea, business methods in general were not excluded from patentability. Further, business method inventions were distinguished from computer-implemented or software inventions.
www.worldipreview.com
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 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237 |
Page 238 |
Page 239 |
Page 240 |
Page 241 |
Page 242 |
Page 243 |
Page 244 |
Page 245 |
Page 246 |
Page 247 |
Page 248 |
Page 249 |
Page 250 |
Page 251 |
Page 252 |
Page 253 |
Page 254 |
Page 255 |
Page 256 |
Page 257 |
Page 258 |
Page 259 |
Page 260 |
Page 261 |
Page 262 |
Page 263 |
Page 264 |
Page 265 |
Page 266 |
Page 267 |
Page 268 |
Page 269 |
Page 270 |
Page 271