List of UK judgments relating to excluded subject matter

Last updated

Under United Kingdom patent law, a patent may only be granted for "an invention". While the meaning of invention is not defined, certain things are not regarded as inventions. Such things are excluded from patentability. This article lists judgments delivered by the UK courts that deal with excluded subject matter.

Contents

The provisions about what are not to be regarded as inventions are not easy. There has been and continues to be much debate about them and about decisions on them given by national courts and the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office. [1] This article also list some of the discussions that have been had about the different judgments.

Law

Article 52 of the European Patent Convention, which represents the source of UK law in this area and which should have the same meaning [1] states that:

(1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application.
(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:
(a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
(b) aesthetic creations;
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;
(d) presentations of information.
(3) Paragraph 2 shall exclude the patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to therein only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.

By year

The following table lists judgments by year, although it is sortable by any of the other fields by activating the sort icon.

YearNameCourtPatent/applicationJudgmentAppealArticle
1987Merrill Lynch's Application [1988] RPC 1Patents Court GBapplication 2180380  Computer program as such[1989] RPC 561 - upheld, but for different reasons Merrill Lynch
1987Genentech's Patent [1987] RPC 553Patents Court[1989] RPC 147 Genentech's Patent
1989Genentech's Patent [1989] RPC 147 Genentech's Patent
1989Merrill Lynch's Application [1989] RPC 561Court of Appeal GBapplication 2180380  Business method as suchNone Merrill Lynch
1990Gale's Application [1991] RPC 311Patents Court GBapplication 2174221  Not a computer program as such[1991] RPC 305, 317 - overturned Gale's Application
1990Gale's Application [1991] RPC 305, 317Court of Appeal GBapplication 2174221  Mathematical method and computer program as suchNone Gale's Application
1991Wang's application [1991] RPC 463
1993Raytheon's application [1993] RPC 427
1996Fujitsu’s Application [1996] RPC 511High Court[1997] EWCA 1174 (Civ) - upheld but for different reasons Fujitsu's Application
1997Fujitsu's Application [1997] EWCA Civ 1174 (6 March 1997)Court of AppealComputer program as suchNone Fujitsu's Application
2001Amgen Parties v Roche Parties [2001] EWHC 433(Patents) (11 April 2001)Patents Court EP 0148605B  Not a discovery as suchNot appealed directly, but several related cases including an HoL decision Kirin-Amgen v Hoechst Marion Roussel
2005CFPH LLC's Applications [2005] EWHC 1589(Patents) (21 July 2005)Patents CourtBusiness method as suchNone CFPH LLC's Applications

1993

1996

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2011

2013

By subject matter

The following table lists judgments and the different categories of excluded subject matter that are discussed within that judgment.

YearJudgmentDiscoveriesScientific theoriesMathematical methodsAesthetic creationsMental actsPlaying gamesDoing businessPrograms for computersPresentations of informationAppeal
1987Merrill Lynch's Application [1988] RPC 1[1989] RPC 561 - upheld, but for different reasons
1987Genentech's Patent [1987] RPC 553[1989] RPC 147
1989Genentech's Patent [1989] RPC 147None
1989Merrill Lynch's Application [1989] RPC 561discussed but not judged ondiscussed but not judged onbusiness method as suchdiscussed but not judged onNone
1990Gale's Application [1991] RPC 311not a mathematical method as suchnot a computer program as such[1991] RPC 305, 317 - overturned
1990Gale's Application [1991] RPC 305, 317discussed but not judged onmathematical method as suchcomputer program as suchNone
1991Wang's application [1991] RPC 463
1993Raytheon's application [1993] RPC 427
1997Fujitsu's Application [1997] EWCA Civ 1174 (6 March 1997)discussed but not judged ondiscussed but not judged oncomputer program as suchNone
2005CFPH LLC's Applications [2005] EWHC 1589(Patents) (21 July 2005)discussed but not judged ondiscussed but not judged ondiscussed but not judged ondiscussed but not judged onbusiness method as suchdiscussed but not judged ondiscussed but not judged onNone
2005Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd & Ors [2005] EWHC 1623(Patents) (21 July 2005)mental act as such, but correctable defectAppeal filed, but not on this point [2]
2005Crawford's Application [2005] EWHC 2417(Patents) (4 November 2005)None
2005Shoppalotto.com's Application [2005] EWHC 2416(Patents) (7 November 2005)None
2009Tate & Lyle Technology Limited v Roquette Frères [2009] EWHC 1312(Patents) (16 June 2009)Discovery as suchNone

Discussions

Lawyers, patent attorneys and economists have often debated the effects of the judgments listed above. A list of some papers and articles is provided below. Many of these papers discuss more than one judgment, but they have been ordered according to their primary focus, if there is one.

Fujitsu's Application

CFPH's Applications

Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan's Application

Multi-judgment discussions

Key

See also

Related Research Articles

The patentability of software, computer programs and computer-implemented inventions under the European Patent Convention (EPC) is the extent to which subject matter in these fields is patentable under the Convention on the Grant of European Patents of October 5, 1973. The subject also includes the question of whether European patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) in these fields are regarded as valid by national courts.

The WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), particularly Article 27, is occasionally referenced in the political debate on the international legal framework for the patentability of software, and on whether software and computer-implemented inventions should be considered as a field of technology.

The inventive step and non-obviousness reflect a general patentability requirement present in most patent laws, according to which an invention should be sufficiently inventive—i.e., non-obvious—in order to be patented. In other words, "[the] nonobviousness principle asks whether the invention is an adequate distance beyond or above the state of the art".

Patentable, statutory or patent-eligible subject matter is subject matter which is susceptible of patent protection. The laws or patent practices of many countries provide that certain subject-matter is excluded from patentability, even if the invention is novel and non-obvious. Together with criteria such as novelty, inventive step or nonobviousness, utility, and industrial applicability, which differ from country to country, the question of whether a particular subject matter is patentable is one of the substantive requirements for patentability.

Menashe Business Mercantile Ltd. & Anor v William Hill Organization Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 1702 was a patent case regarding Internet usage. The case addressed a European patent covering the United Kingdom for an invention referred to as "Interactive, computerized gaming system with remote control". Menashe sued William Hill, claiming that William Hill was infringing the patent by operating an online gaming system. William Hill's defence argued that it did not infringe the patent because the server on which it operated the system was located outside of the UK, in Antigua or Curaçao. Although accepting that their supply of software was in the UK and that this was an essential part of the invention, they further argued that the patent was for the parts of the system, and as one essential part of the system was not located in the UK, there could be no infringement.

There are four overriding requirements for a patent to be granted under United Kingdom patent law. Firstly, there must have been an invention. That invention must be novel, inventive and susceptible of industrial application.

Richard Mawrey, QC is a barrister and Deputy High Court Judge in the United Kingdom. He is a bencher of Gray's Inn and a member of Henderson Chambers. In his role as a judge in election cases, he has repeatedly criticised the postal voting system in the United Kingdom.

Dehns is a United Kingdom firm of patent and trade mark attorneys, with offices in London, Munich, Oslo, Oxford, Brighton, Manchester, Sandwich and Bristol. It was founded in 1920 by Frank Bernard Dehn.

<i>Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd</i>

Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan's Application is a judgment by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The judgment was passed down on 27 October 2006 and relates to two different appeals from decisions of the High Court. The first case involved GB 2171877 granted to Aerotel Ltd and their infringement action against Telco Holdings Ltd and others. The second case concerned GB application 2388937 filed by Neal Macrossan but refused by the UK Patent Office.

Stephen Sedley

Sir Stephen Sedley is a British lawyer. He worked as a judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales from 1999 to 2011 and is currently a visiting professor at the University of Oxford.

Sir Robert Raphael Hayim "Robin" Jacob, PC is a former judge in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales.

Fujitsu's Application [1997] EWCA Civ 1174 is a 6 March 1997 judgment by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The judges' decision was to confirm the refusal of a patent by the United Kingdom Patent Office and by Mr Justice Laddie in the High Court. Lord Justice Aldous heard the appeal before the Court of Appeal.

Michael Briggs, Lord Briggs of Westbourne British judge

Michael Townley Featherstone Briggs, Lord Briggs of Westbourne, is a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. He served earlier as a judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. By Royal Warrant, he bears the courtesy title of Lord Briggs of Westbourne.

Bristows is a full-service commercial, law firm, particularly known for its technology and intellectual property work.

Sufficiency of disclosure in Canadian patent law

In Canada, every patent application must include the “specification”. The patent specification has three parts: the disclosure, the claims, and the abstract. The contents of the specification are crucial in patent litigation.

<i>FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC</i>

FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC[2014] UKSC 45 is a landmark decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court which holds that a bribe or secret commission accepted by an agent is held on trust for his principal. In so ruling, the Court partially overruled Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd in favour of The Attorney General for Hong Kong v Reid (UKPC), a ruling from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from New Zealand.

The British Post Office scandal involved the wrongful prosecution of 732 sub-postmasters (SPMs) for theft, false accounting and/or fraud. The prosecutions, civil actions, and extortions resulted in criminal convictions, false confessions, imprisonments, defamation, loss of livelihood, bankruptcy, divorce, and suicide.

DABUS is an artificial intelligence (AI) system created by Stephen Thaler. It reportedly conceived two inventions. The filing of patent applications designating DABUS as inventor has led to decisions by patent offices and courts on whether a patent can be granted for an invention reportedly made by an AI system.

References

  1. 1 2 Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd & Ors and Neal William Macrossan's Application [2006] EWCA Civ 1371 (27 October 2006)
  2. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 1715 (15 December 2006)