Peter Prescott QC J set out the four steps to be taken: ‘The approach is in four steps:
‘(1) properly construe the claim;
(2) identify the actual contribution;
(3) ask whether it falls solely within the excluded subject matter;
(4) check whether the actual or alleged contribution is actually technical in nature.’ (see Aerotel at [40] per Jacob LJ giving the judgment of this court).’
Judges:
Peter Prescott QC J
Citations:
[2013] EWHC 2673 (Pat)
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Lantana Ltd (Patent) IPO 4-Feb-2013
IPO The application relates to retrieving data from a remote computer using e-mail. A local computer sends a first e-mail containing machine-readable retrieval criteria and the remote computer responds with an . .
Cited – Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd and others, In re Patent Application GB 0314464.9 in the name of Neal Macrossan Rev 1 CA 27-Oct-2006
In each case it was said that the requested patent concerned an invention consisting of a computer program, and was not therefore an invention and was unpatentable. In one case a patent had been revoked on being challenged, and in the other, the . .
Cited – HTC Europe Co Ltd v Apple Inc CA 3-May-2013
Appeal against two findings that two patents relating to touch sensitive screens were invalid for obviousness in the light of prior art.
Held: It was appropriate for the court, when considering the patentability of computer programs, to adhere . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Lantana Ltd v The Comptroller General of Patents, Design and Trade Marks CA 13-Nov-2014
The inventor company appealed against rejection of its application for a patent for a computer program.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘on the facts found by the Hearing Officer, the invention is no more than the computerisation of a process which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.515316
