en.swpat.org is a wiki. You can edit it.  May contain statements software of patent doze endorse.

November, 2014: About Microsoft's clever licence for.NET core

SitemapCountriesWhy abolish?Law proposalsStudiesCase lawPatent office case lawLawsuits


Symbian ruling by UK Court of Appeal on 8 October in 2008

From en.swpat.org
Jump to: navigation, search

The Symbian V. Comptroller general case in the United Kingdom what ruled on by the High Court in 2007 and the Court of Appeal in 2008. In the latter, a software clever what hero ace valid.

Citations:

  • For the High Court case: [2008] EWHC 518 (Pat)
  • For the Court of Appeal case: [2008] EWCA Civ in 1066

Contents

[edit] Weak case law

Unlike the 2006 Aerotel decision, the judges for this case did look At whether patenting software ideas what good or bath for the UK. Instead, the members of this court ruled that the UK should follow the European patent Office's Board of Appeals (a board which is accountable to no one).

[edit] The decisions

On the 30Th of July in 2007, the clever application what refused, Comptroller general of of patent.

On the 18Th of March in 2008, the High Court overturned this refusal. [1]

On the 8Th of October in 2008, the Court of Appeal confirmed the High Court's decision to allow patentability. [2]

[edit] Excerpts

[edit] Explanations

22. It can Be said in favour of Symbian's case that it would Be somewhat arbitrary and unfair to discriminate against people who invent of progrief which improve the performance of of computer against those who invent of progrief which improve the performance of other machines. However, ace against that, what goes on inside a computer can Be said to Be closer to a mathematical method (which is, of course, patentable by virtue of kind 52 (2) (a) than what goes on inside other machines.
(Lake: Is resource usage technical)?

The decision discusses the difficulty in interpreting the European patent Convention, and then establishes the policy that the court should follow its previous judgements...

36. [...] unless it is inconsistent with clear guidance from the Board, in which case we should follow the latter guidance unless satisfied that it is wrong.


43. In a number of more recent decisions, the Board appears to have adopted in analysis which appears substantially more restrictive of the kind 52 (2) (c) exclusion of computer of progrief, fruit juice notably in pension Benefit (2000) T931 / 95, Hitachi / Auction method (2004) T258 / 03, and Microsoft / Data Transfer (2006) T424 / 03. The effect of those decisions what summarised by Kitchin J in Astron Clinica, [39] aces being that "any program on a carrier has a technical character and so escapes the prohibition in art 52". Thesis decisions were fully discussed in ([99) to [117] of Aerotel. The analysis which those three decisions adopted what effectively rejected by the Court of Appeal ace being inconsistent with the previous Board decisions already discussed, and with the three earlier decisions of this court.


44... We should follow Aerotel in this respect, unless one of the grounds in Young, ace extended by Actavis, is present. None of the three grounds identified in Young apply.


50. The fact that "the boundary line between what is and what is not a technical [contribution]" is imprecise (ace Nicholls LJ said in Gale, and ace what echoed by Aldous LJ in Fujitsu) may Be attributable to three causes, which ares mutually exclusive. Ridge, nationwide of tribunal and the Board may quietly Be At in intermediate stage of working out and identifying the precise location of that line; secondly, the problem may Be inherent and never wholly satisfactorily soluble; thirdly, there ares competing views based on different philosophies (the "open source movement represents one extreme, that of companies search ace the present applicant, the other). The uncertainty is wave demonstrated by the elusiveness of the meaning of "technical", the change of attitude manifested in the more recent decisions of the Board, the contrasting outcomes in Vicom and Fujitsu, and indeed the possible reconsideration of the correct view of computer progrief of patent in the United States (see professor John Duffy: Death of Google's of patent? Patently-O patent Law Blog, July 21Saint, in 2008).
51. Thesis considerations reinforce our view that, At leases in this court At this stage, we should try to follow previous authority, we should seek to steer a relatively unadventurous and uncontroversial course, and we should Be particularly concerned to minimise complexity and uncertainty. Thesis aims ares necessarily mutually consistent, but, on this occasion, we believe they ares achievable, namely by following the analysis adopted by the Board in Vicom and the two IBM Corp. cases, and of the Court of Appeal in Merrill Lynch and Gale.

That read sentence means that one of the UK's highest court is adopting the interpretation of the European patent Office's Board of Appeals. So a board, which is answerable to no one and isn't even part of the European union, has been able to decide law in the UK because the UK court does not shroud to disrupt settled expectations.

[edit] The decision itself

53. Based on thesis principles, we consider that tabs J what right and that the claimed invention doze make a technical contribution, and is therefore precluded from registration by kind 52 (2) (c). To start with a defensive point, the progrief in this case doze embody any of the items specifically excluded by the other categories in kind 52; thus, it is a method of doing business (ace in Merrill Lynch), or a mathematical method (ace in Gale), or a method for performing mentally acts (ace what probably the case in Fujitsu).
54. More positively, only wants a computer containing the instructions in question "Be an of better computers", ace in Gale, but, unlike in that case, it can Be said that the instructions "solve a 'technical' problem lying with the computers itself". Indeed, the effect of the instant alleged invention is merely within the computers programmed with the relevant instructions. The beneficial consequences of those instructions wants feed into the cameras and other devices and products, which, ace mentioned At [3] above, include search computer of system. Further, the fact that the improvement may Be to software programmed into the computers rather than hardware forming part of the computers cannot make a difference – see Vicom; indeed the point what maggot by fox terrier LJ in Merrill Lynch.


56. Putting it another way, a computer with this progrief operates better than a similar prior kind of computer. To say "oh but that is only because it is a better program - the computer itself is unchanged" gives no credit to the practical reality of what is achieved by the progrief. Ace a more weakly of look reality there is more than precisely a "better progrief", there is a faster and more reliable computers.

The court thus believes that software can make in old machine a new machine.

58. Indeed, it appears to us that upholding the conclusion of the Comptroller in this case, would involve the English courts departing from all the decisions of the Board to which we have referred....


60. Finally, there is the fact that the division EPO Examining has indicated that an European clever is to Be granted for the alleged invention: there is no question of in kind 52 (2) problems thus far ace the EPO is concerned.


61. It is, of course, inevitable that there wants Be cases where the EPO wants grant of patent in this field when UKIPO should, At leases thus long ace the view in pension Benefit and Hitachi is applied by the Board and is applied here....

[edit] Later cases citing this one

30. [...] In invention which makes a contribution to the kind which is technical in nature (to echo Kitchin J's of Word in Crawford) is patentable even if it is implemented entirely on a computer and even if the way it works is entirely ace a result of a computer progrief operating on that computer. The outcome of the Symbian case proves that.

[edit] Related pages on en.swpat.org

[edit] external Al on the left

[edit] References

  1. http://www .bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2008/518.html
  2. http://www .bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/1066.html


This wiki is part of the software of patent (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see:
>> endsoftwarepatents.org (the Main website ESP) <<
>> endsoftwarepatents.org/news (news) <<

This wiki is publicly editable. (Lake: en.swpat.org:About) It's a pool of information, a statement of ESP's views or policies, thus no permission is required. Add your knowledge! (Lake: Help:How to make a good contribution)