JURISDICTION REPORT: BRAZIL
DRAFT GUIDELINE FOR SOFTWARE EXAMINATION UNDER CONSIDERATION
Otto Licks and Carlos Aboim Leonardos & Licks Advogados
Te Brazilian Patent Office (INPI) has started a series of public consultations on patent examination procedures. Te first draſt guideline is on soſtware- implemented inventions, and it will be open for comments from the public until May 14, 2012. INPI says that the goal of the consultation is to harmonise and publicise the examination procedures.
Te draſt guideline consolidates the current practice of the agency regarding soſtware-implemented inventions. Nevertheless, it is important to invite the companies that are investing in R&D to contribute to the INPI’s consultation, since it is apparent that political parties in Brazil are seizing this opportunity to present a misleading view of the patentability criteria of computer-implemented inventions.
Te Brazilian Patent Law excludes computer programs per se from patentability. Te literal elements of the soſtware, such as the source code, are protected by copyright in Brazil. Nevertheless, the statute does not exclude soſtware-implemented inventions from patentability, and Art. 27 of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement determines that patents must be available for all technical fields. Terefore, the INPI has been granting patents (despite the absence of a guideline such as the one now subject to public consultation), provided that they fulfil the legal requirements of novelty, inventive activity, and industrial application.
Te guideline proposed by INPI follows EPO (G3/08) of the European Patent Office, highlighting the importance of identifying the technical problem being solved, as well as the proposed solution and the effects attained thereby. Te invention must have a technical character and solve a technical problem, demonstrating an inventive technical contribution to the prior art.
Te draſt guideline lists, as examples of technical effect, (i) optimisation (of speed of execution, of hardware resources, of memory use, of access to databases); and (ii) file management, data transmission, and optimisation of user interface. Te guideline highlights that when related merely to appearance, aspects of a computer program interface are not considered as inventions, although their functional aspects, such as the functionality of a new human- machine interface (HMI) may be deemed to constitute inventions.
Te invention must also have a predetermined technical effect going beyond the normal physical interactions between the program (soſtware) and the computer (hardware) on which it runs, regardless of whether this technical effect is internal or external to the processing unit. Examples cited by the draſt guideline are inventions that (i) shorten memory access times; (ii) provide better control over a robot element; or (iii) provide better reception or coding of a radio signal, meeting the technical effect criteria even when taking place inside the computer. Te guideline states that in these cases there is a direct causal relation between the invention and such effects.
52 World Intellectual Property Review May/June 2012
Te draſt guideline also points out that creations involving mathematical methods may constitute inventions if they are intrinsically linked to a practical application aimed at solving a technical problem. Following the same rationale, it states that an invention that implements an algorithm, despite the exclusion from patentability as such, is patentable when run by a specific hardware item, consisting of basic instructions or logical steps to be followed in order to produce a technical effect solving a specific problem.
Te guideline establishes that the title of the patent application must be concise, clear and accurate, identifying the purpose of the application and listing the categories of claims requested. Expressions or words such as soſtware, computer program, business method, money, treatment, method, etc, are not accepted, as they are listed in the Brazilian Patent Law as excluded from patentability.
Te description of the invention must be clear to a person having ordinary skill, and small excerpts of the source code may be presented, should this be deemed useful for understanding the invention. Te draſt guideline goes further and states that it is “of vital importance” that the relevant state of the art is described, and that the technical problems are “precisely and clearly” demonstrated. Te application must present drawings to ensure a better understanding of the invention, such as the overall structure, basic blocks and segments in terms of its functions, meaning flow charts for the method being implemented, as well as some of the main screens, should the invention involve the user interface.
According to the draſt, the invention may be claimed as a product (system, device or device associated to the process) or a process (method). Te claims cannot contain snippets of the source code. Product claims must be described in terms of their physical elements (new devices, memories, etc) or in terms of the methods they employ and their functions. Tese functions may characterise the product as a set of stages performed in sequence. However, claims must always refer to the physical elements that comprise the product, and not merely their effects.
Process claims must be written as a sequence of stages, describing the functions attained, for example: “A method for automatic gear change control, characterised by the stages of measuring motor speed, generating a skid indication sign, comparing motor speed and input speed, in order to control the gear change action.” Tese claims must be worded as a method or as a process, as both refer to a set of stages for attaining a technical outcome.
Otto Licks is a partner at Leonardos & Licks Advogados. He can be contacted at:
otto.licks@
leonardoslicks.com
Carlos Aboim is a partner at Leonardos & Licks Advogados. He can be contacted at:
carlos.aboim@leonardoslicks.com
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