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

DKH Retail Ltd v Republic (Retail) Ltd: ChD 3 Apr 2012

The claimant had begun its action complaining of infringement of unregistered design right in the High Court. The defendant applied to have the case heard in the Patents County Court.
Held: The current practice, under which such a decision was made by the transferring court was the correct one, and was within the Civil Procedure Rules.

Judges:

Birss QC J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 877 (Ch), [2012] WLR(D) 109, [2012] Bus LR 1363

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property, Litigation Practice

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.452449

The Honey Pot Trust (Patent): IPO 21 Oct 2010

The application relates to a system which allows the occurrence of a transaction and the events forming part of the transaction to be verified by separate recording of audio/visual information relating to the transaction. The audio/visual information is captured by a camera and stored in a subsidiary data store of a central store that is accessible only to satellite data processing systems associated with the particular subsidiary store. The hearing officer found that the invention did not relate to a computer program or a method of doing business as such, and that it did involve an inventive step. The application was referred back to the examiner to deal with minor matters of construction prior to sending to grant.

Citations:

[2010] UKIntelP o36110

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.458098