In the context of deciding as to the patentability the use of the description ‘technical’ was ‘a useful servant but a dangerous master’. Peter Prescott QC discussed the importance of being clear as to the meaning of an ‘invention’ saying: ‘does it really matter? Is it merely a sterile argument about the meaning of words? To which I answer that whoever controls the meaning of ‘invention’ controls what can be patented and hence an important aspect of industrial policy. There can be but one justification for having a patent system, and that is that it is good for the people of the country. If the patenting of certain things does more harm than good, it matters. Patents that are wrongly granted can be very expensive to challenge and may deter small and medium enterprises. ‘
Judges:
Peter Prescott QC
Citations:
[2005] EWHC 1589 (Pat), [2006] RPC 5
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – CFPH LLC (Patent) IPO 14-Dec-2004
IPO The two applications are concerned with networked interactive wagering on the outcomes of events, with particular emphasis on reducing processing delays to a minimum so that in circumstances where prices are . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Cappellini and Bloomberg, Re PatC 13-Mar-2007
The applicants appealed rejection of their applications for patents. The comptroller-general had said that patents were in respect of computer programs excluded from registration.
Held: The appeals failed. There was no relevant technical . .
Cited – Symbian Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents CA 8-Oct-2008
No Pattern Established to Patent Computer Systems
The Comptroller appealed against the decision in Chancery to grant a patent to the clamant for an invention which the comptroller said should have been excluded from protection under section 1(2) as a computer program. It was argued that the UK was . .
Cited – In re IGT / Acres Gaming Inc PatC 19-Mar-2008
The court was asked: ‘When a claim defines an invention partly by reference to excluded subject-matter e.g. a business method, how do you search the prior art?’ The company appealed against rejection of its request for a patent. . .
Cited – Overture Services Inc (Patent) IPO 21-Dec-2005
IPO The invention concerned a search engine for searching geo-coded records. The user specifies a distance range as a limitation on the field of search, so that for example, it is possible to search for a pizza . .
Cited – Overture Services Inc (Patent) (1) IPO 23-Mar-2006
IPO Excluded fields (refused) – The invention relates to a method for helping an advertiser or other information providers find the most relevant search terms for their website. This was held to be a method of . .
Cited – Overture Services Inc (Patent) (2) IPO 23-Mar-2006
IPO Excluded fields (refused) – The invention relates to an account monitoring system which allows a network based search engine provider to provide account information to various advertisers in order to prevent . .
Cited – Overture Services Inc (Patent) (3) IPO 23-Mar-2006
IPO Excluded fields (refused) – The invention relates to a method whereby the owner of a search listing is automatically informed if certain conditions pertaining to his listing, for example where the listing . .
Cited – Overture Services Inc (Patent) (4) IPO 23-Mar-2006
IPO The invention relates to a method for enabling information providers using a computer network such as the internet to influence the position of a search listing within a search result list generated by an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228953