Category: Intellectual Property

Oracle International Corporation: IPO 12 May 2011

IPO The invention in question relates to a data approvals system and method for managing data during the process of approving a transaction in a computerized system. The applicants argued that the invention provides a flexible and more reliable computer which functions at a high level of architecture above low level data handling applications and that this makes a technical contribution to the operation of a computer. The Hearing Officer applied the four point ‘Aerotel/Macrossan’ test, as modified by Re. Symbian, and took account of the ‘signposts’ for determining technical contribution detailed in Re. ATandT Knowledge Ventures and CVON Innovation’s Ltd. He found that the invention did not provide an impact on the technical infrastructure of the computer and therefore would not make a computer technically more flexible or more reliable. He held that the invention lay solely in the field of excluded subject matter and refused the application as relating to a computer program, as such, under section 1(2) of the Act.

Citations:

[2011] UKIntelP o15711, O/157/11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.458327

Direct TV Pty Ltd (Patent): IPO 4 May 2011

The application relates to the production of flexible media presentations, in which the content of at least some of the presentation can be varied as the media presentation is displayed on a device such as a CRT or LCD screen. The Hearing Officer applied the Aerotel/Macrossan test, as modified by Symbian, and decided that the contribution made by the invention fell solely within excluded matter. He also concluded that the contribution did not have a relevant technical effect. The application was refused as being a program for a computer as such.

Citations:

[2011] UKIntelP o15011

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.458319

Hung Mei (Trade Mark: Revocation): IPO 14 Jul 2005

In earlier opposition proceedings between the parties (BL O/240/04) it appeared likely that the registered proprietor had not used the mark as registered. In these proceedings the proprietor did not claim use of the mark as registered but stated that there had been use of a variation of the mark in that the words HONG MEI had been used instead of HUNG MEI. It claimed that this change did not affect the distinctive character of the mark as registered.
The applicant for revocation was critical of the registered proprietor’s evidence and submitted that the mark as used was different from that registered.
The Hearing Officer accepted that there had been no use of the mark as registered and went on to compare the elements HONG MEI and HUNG MEI. As he found these elements to be very different he concluded that use of the HONG MEI mark could not protect the mark as registered. Revocation thus succeeded.

Citations:

1056909, [2005] UKIntelP o19605

Links:

IPO, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.456372