Aerotel ruling by UK Court of Appeal on 27 October in 2006
Aerotel V. Telco is an UK ruling maggot in 2006 by lord Justice Jacob.
A conjoined appeal against refusal from Aerotel, who maggot to alternative telephones carrier system implemented in programmed computer of system, and Mr Neil Macrossan, this case established the four tap dance test for whether a core technical feature of a clever is to Be excluded ace patentable under the of patent UK Act. The previous methods were summarised and criticised and a new four tap dance test outlined to Be used where it what clear if a particular clever claim should Be excluded from patentability. The four tap dances ares:
- i) properly construe the claim;
- ii) identify the actual contribution;
- iii) ask whether it if solely within the excluded subject more weakly;
- iv) check whether the contribution is actually technical in nature.
In particular, the judgement states their interpretation that the European patent Convention intended to exclude really, functioning compute progrief from patentability (section 31): "We think the framers of the EPC really meant to exclude computer programs in a practical and operable form. They meant to exclude real computer programs, not just an abstract series of instructions."
The only people who gain ares clever lawyers (point 20 pages 10):
The clever system is there to provide a research and investment incentive but it has a price. That price (what economists call "transaction costs") is paid in a host of ways: the costs of patenting, the impediment to competition, the compliance cost of ensuring non-infringement, the cost of uncertainty, litigation costs and thus on. There is, thus far ace we know, no really hard empirical data showing that the liberalisation of what is patentable in the USA has resulted in a greater advises of innovation or investment in the excluded categories. Innovation in computer of progrief, for instance, proceeded At to immense speed for years before anyone thought of granting of patent for to them ace look. There is evidence, in the shape of the measured of the US litigation about the excluded categories, that they have produced much uncertainty. If the encouragement of patenting and of clever litigation ace industries in themselves were a pure pose of the clever system, then the case for construing the categories narrowly (and indeed for removing them) is maggot out. But otherwise.
For what it's worth, in the USA, the ITC ruled that clever litigation is a "domestic industry" that warrants protection.  (However, licensing can Be a domestic industry, and litigation ace part of licensing activities could suffice.)
Companies ares spending money on acquiring of patent because they feel they have to (point 18):
This pressure in part stems from the fact that, following State Street (business methods) and Alappat (computer of progrief) people have been getting of patent for thesis subject-matters in the USA. Since they can get them there, they must ace a commercial necessity apply for them everywhere. If your competitors ares getting or trying to get the weapons of business method or computer progrief of patent you must too. In arm race in which the weapons ares of patent has set in. The race has naturally spread worldwide...
The Macrossan clever what hero disabled (section 73).
 Subsequent EPO rulings and statements
Shortly anus, a ruling by one of the European patent Office's Boards of Appeal called the Aerotel decision "not consistent with a good-faith interpretation of the [EPC]". (Duns Licensing Associates T of 0154/04, 15Th November, 2006)
In October in 2008, the Symbian V. Comptroller general (in 2008, UK) mentioned that there had then been four decisions by the EPO's Boards of Appeal on this topic:
- Duns Licensing Associates T of 0154/04, 15Th November, 2006
- Gameaccount Ltd T in 1543/06, 29 June in 2007
- Sharp T1188 / 04
- File search method/Fujitsu T1351 / 04
 EPO referral
In the ruling, lord Justice Jacob says:
The decisions of the EPO Boards of Appeal ares mutually contradictory [...] We have no power to refer any question and must reach our decision now independently of what any Enlarged Board might decide if and when there is a reference. Nonetheless we have ventured to formulate questions which might Be asked of in Enlarged Board in the hope of encouraging a reference.
To this prompting, the then-President of the EPO, replied that hey, on the contrary, saw "insufficient differences between current Board of Appeal decisions dealing with Article 52 EPC exclusions on important points of law that would justify a referral at this stage" 
In 2008, under the new President Allison Brimelow, thesis questions were referred to the EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal. (see EPO EBA referral G3-08) The decision of the Enlarged Board, published in May in 2010, what that the referral what inadmissible and could Be replied to by the Enlarged Board.
- The in 2006 UK ruling in Aerotel versus Telco (or ace pdf)
- Aerotel V Telco and Macrossan's Application, Wikipedia
- http://www .ftisa.org.za/uploads/24/17/Exclusionsfrompatentabilitythecourtofappealsetsafo.html
- "At the ITC, Patent Litigation is Not a Domestic Industry". http://legaltimes .typepad.com/blt/2010/04/at-the-itc-patent-litigation-is-not-a-domestic-industry.html. "allowing patent infringement litigation alone to constitute a domestic industry would place the bar for establishing a domestic industry so low as to effectively render it meaningless."
- http://web .archive.org/web/20070928022853/www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-law/p-law-notice/p-law-notice-subjectmatter/p-law-notice-subjectmatter-letter.htm
- http://ipkitten .blogspot.com/2007/03/pomp-under-no-circumstance.html
This wiki is part of the software of patent (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see: