Patentable, statutory or patent-eligible subject matter is subject matter of an invention that is considered appropriate for patent protection in a given jurisdiction. The laws and practices of many countries stipulate that certain types of inventions should be denied patent protection. Together with criteria such as novelty, inventive step or nonobviousness, utility (or 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.
The problem of patentable subject matter arises usually in cases of biological and software inventions, and much less frequently in other areas of technology.
Legislation
The subject-matter which is regarded as patentable as a matter of policy, and correspondingly the subject-matter which is excluded from patentability as a matter of policy, depends on the national legislation or international treaty.
According to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) patents may only be granted for physical embodiments of an idea, or a process that results in something that is tangible or can be sold. This excludes theorems and computer programs per se.[1] However, business methods are patentable.[2]
European Patent Convention
The European Patent Convention (EPC) does not provide positive guidance on what should be considered an invention for the purposes of patent law. However, it provides in Article 52(2)EPC a non-exhaustive list of what are not to be regarded as inventions, and therefore not patentable subject matter:
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;
The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.
(In a previous version of the EPC, some further items were excluded under Article 52(4)EPC, as formally being not industrially applicable, notable medical methods as applied by a physician or a veterinarian. Nowadays these methods are excluded directly under Art. 53 EPC, together with other policy exclusions.)
Practice at the European Patent Office (EPO)
Under Article 52(1)EPC, "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." So, four questions need to be assessed:[3]
Is there an invention?
Is the invention susceptible of industrial application?
The first question "Is there an invention?" is equivalent to: "Is the claimed subject-matter as a whole within the realm of patentable subject-matter?" The invention question or patentable subject-matter question precedes the three further questions, which cannot, and need not, be assessed if there is no invention.[4]
According to the case law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, the question "Is there an invention?" also implicitly implies the further question: "Does the claimed subject-matter have a technical character?" "Having technical character is an implicit requirement of the EPC to be met by an invention to be an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1)EPC".[5]
Patentable subject-matter considerations also intervene again at a secondary level, during the inventive step assessment. In T 641/00 (Comvik/Two Identities), the Board held that, "An invention consisting of a mixture of technical and non-technical features and having technical character as a whole is to be assessed with respect to the requirement of inventive step by taking account of all those features which contribute to said technical character whereas features making no such contribution cannot support the presence of inventive step."[6] The non-technical features are the ones that are excluded from the realm of patentable subject-matter as a matter of policy. T 258/03 (Hitachi/Auction Method) further developed this test for patentable subject-matter.
Under this test, a patent application or patent which does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem would be refused (under Article 97(1)EPC) or revoked (under Article 102(1)EPC) as lacking inventive step.
The EPO provides guidelines[7] for evaluating the patent-eligibility of computer-implemented inventions (CII), such as in particular based on Artificial Intelligence (AI). For instance, AI-based image processing programs are considered technical and therefore patent-eligible. Conversely, AI-based text processing programs with a text classification only based on the content of the text are not considered technical. These are excluded from patentability because attaching meaning to words is a cognitive task and not a technical implementation.
(3) ask whether it falls solely within the excluded subject matter
(4) check whether the actual or alleged contribution is actually technical in nature.
The Court decided that the new approach provided a structured and more helpful way of applying the statutory test for assessing patentability which was consistent with previous decisions of the Court.
This test is quite different from the test used by the EPO, as expressed in T 641/00 (Comvik/Two Identities) and T 258/03 (Hitachi/Auction Method), but it is considered that the end result will be the same in nearly every case.[8]
Patentable subject matter in the United States is governed by 35 U.S.C. 101. The two particularly contentious areas, with numerous reversals of prior legislative and judicial decisions, have been computer-based and biological inventions.[9][10] The US practice of patentable subject matter is very different from that of the European Patent Office. Whereas the EPO adopted an exclusionary approach by denying patentability to specific types of inventions (discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods; aesthetic creations; schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers; presentations of information), the US Supreme Court in its Alice-Mayo framework proposed an inclusionary approach: instead of categorically excluding certain types of invention, an additional "inventive concept" is required to limit the scope of the patent claims to certain applications of a newly discoved algorithm or a law of nature.
There is an important relationship between patent eligibility and non-obviousness tests in the US patent law. The non-obviousness criterion can be easily met if a claim is based on a discovery of new natural phenomenon/principle/law. In the patentable subject matter analysis, however, this "discovery" is assumed to be prior art, and an "additional inventive concept" must be present in the claim.[11]
In the case of computer-implemented methods, the algorithms (even new and non-obvious) per se are not patentable (Gottschalk v. Benson, Parker v. Flook), and an additional "inventive concept" is required to limit the algorithm to new and useful application(s) (Diamond v. Diehr).[12]
The question of what should and should not be patentable subject matter has spawned a number of battlegrounds in recent years,[when?] setting against each other those in each area supporting patentability, claiming that patents would cause increased innovation and public good, against opponents with views that patentability is being sought only for private good but would do public harm.
↑ See Article 57EPC: "An invention shall be considered as susceptible of industrial application if (...)", Article 54(1)EPC: "An invention shall be considered to be new if (...)", and Article 56(1)EPC: "An invention shall be considered as involving an inventive step (...)")
↑ Alice at Six: Patent Eligibility Comes of Age. 2021. Chi-Kent J Intell Prop. 20/64. M.A. Perry, J.S. Chung.
↑ Prometheus and Bilski: Pushing the Bounds of Patentable Subject Matter in Medical Diagnostic Techniques with the Machine-or-Transformation Test. 2010. Am J Law Med. 36/4, 619-51. S. Pessagno. doi: 10.1177/009885881003600404.
↑ Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial LLC: Gene-Based Assays in the Wake of Mayo. 2016. Biotechnol Law Rep. 35/3, 89-92. M. Sanzo. doi: 10.1089/blr.2016.29015.ms.
↑ Alice at Six: Patent Eligibility Comes of Age. 2021. Chi-Kent J Intell Prop. 20/64. M.A. Perry, J.S. Chung.
Further reading
Peter Mole, Economics, ethics and the subject-matter definition of the EPC, The CIPA Journal, April 2003
Typepad.com, Ex parte Lundgren (U.S. Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, October 2005), especially the dissent of Judge Barrett, which contains a lengthy presentation of statutory subject matter following page 19.
Patent.gov, UK Patent Office Manual of Patent Practice section on patentability.
Related Research Articles
A software patent is a patent on a piece of software, such as a computer program, libraries, user interface, or algorithm.
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 (sometimes called "software patents") are regarded as valid by national courts.
The European Patent Convention (EPC), also known as the Convention on the Grant of European Patents of 5 October 1973, is a multilateral treaty instituting the European Patent Organisation and providing an autonomous legal system according to which European patents are granted. The term European patent is used to refer to patents granted under the European Patent Convention. However, a European patent is not a unitary right, but a group of essentially independent nationally enforceable, nationally revocable patents, subject to central revocation or narrowing as a group pursuant to two types of unified, post-grant procedures: a time-limited opposition procedure, which can be initiated by any person except the patent proprietor, and limitation and revocation procedures, which can be initiated by the patent proprietor only.
A person having ordinary skill in the art, a person of (ordinary) skill in the art, a person skilled in the art, a skilled addressee or simply a skilled person is a legal fiction found in many patent laws throughout the world. This hypothetical person is considered to have the normal skills and knowledge in a particular technical field, without being a genius. This measure mainly serves as a reference for determining, or at least evaluating, whether an invention is non-obvious or not, or involves an inventive step or not. If it would have been obvious for this fictional person to come up with the invention while starting from the prior art, then the particular invention is considered not patentable.
Within the context of a national or multilateral body of law, an invention is patentable if it meets the relevant legal conditions to be granted a patent. By extension, patentability also refers to the substantive conditions that must be met for a patent to be held valid.
There are two provisions in the regulations annexed to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) that relate to the search and examination of patent applications concerning computer programs. These two provisions are present in the PCT, which does not provide for the grant of patents but provides a unified procedure for filing, searching and examining patent applications, called international applications. The question of patentability is touched when conducting the search and the examination, which is an examination of whether the invention appears to be patentable.
Business method patents are a class of patents which disclose and claim new methods of doing business. This includes new types of e-commerce, insurance, banking and tax compliance etc. Business method patents are a relatively new species of patent and there have been several reviews investigating the appropriateness of patenting business methods. Nonetheless, they have become important assets for both independent inventors and major corporations.
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.
T 931/95, commonly known as Pension Benefit Systems Partnership, is a decision of a Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), issued on September 8, 2000. At the time, it was a landmark decision for interpreting Article 52(1) and (2) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) but has now largely been superseded by the decisions in T 641/00 and T 258/03.
T 258/03, also known as Auction Method/Hitachi, is a decision of a Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), issued on April 21, 2004. It is a landmark decision for interpreting Article 52(1) and (2) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) which built on the principles suggested by the same Board in T 641/00. This decision, amongst others, but notably this one and T 641/00, significantly affected the assessment of an invention’s technical character and inventive step.
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.
T 641/00, also known as Two identities/COMVIK, is a decision of a Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), issued on September 26, 2002. It is a landmark decision regarding the patentable subject matter requirement and inventive step under the European Patent Convention (EPC). More generally, it is a significant decision regarding the patentability of business methods and computer-implemented inventions under the EPC.
T 1173/97, also known as Computer program product/IBM or simply Computer program product, is a decision of a Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), issued on July 1, 1998. It is a landmark decision for interpreting Article 52(2) and (3) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) and whether computer programs are excluded from patentability under the EPC.
Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), European patents shall be granted for inventions which inter alia involve an inventive step. The central legal provision explaining what this means, i.e. the central legal provision relating to the inventive step under the EPC, is Article 56 EPC. That is, an invention, having regard to the state of the art, must not be obvious to a person skilled in the art. The Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) have developed an approach, called the "problem-and-solution approach", to assess whether an invention involves an inventive step.
Under case number G 3/08, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO issued on May 12, 2010 an opinion in response to questions referred to it by the President of the European Patent Office (EPO), Alison Brimelow, on October 22, 2008. The questions subject of the referral related to the patentability of programs for computers under the European Patent Convention (EPC) and were, according to the President of the EPO, of fundamental importance as they related to the definition of "the limits of patentability in the field of computing." In a 55-page long opinion, the Enlarged Board of Appeal considered the referral to be inadmissible because no divergent decisions had been identified in the referral.
Under Article 82 EPC, a European patent application must "...relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept." This legal provision is the application, within the European Patent Convention, of the requirement of unity of invention, which also applies also in other jurisdictions.
Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), European patents shall be granted for inventions which inter alia are new. The central legal provision explaining what this means, i.e. the central legal provision relating to the novelty under the EPC, is Article 54 EPC. Namely, "an invention can be patented only if it is new. An invention is considered to be new if it does not form part of the state of the art. The purpose of Article 54(1) EPC is to prevent the state of the art being patented again."
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
