References: T 0154/04
Ratio:Inherent in the concept of ‘an invention’ in the EPC was ‘any subject matter or activity having technical character’ and that a contribution could be patentable ‘even if it was related to the items listed in [art. 52(2)] since these items were only excluded ‘as such’ – art. 52(3)’. In order to be patentable, a contribution must be ‘technical’, or at least must have ‘technical features’ or ‘features which contribute to the technical character of the invention’.
This case cites:
- Considered – Aerotel Ltd -v- Telco Holdings Ltd and others, In re Patent Application GB 0314464.9 in the name of Neal Macrossan Rev 1 CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 1371, [2007] Bus LR 634, [2007] RPC 7, [2006] Info TLR 215, [2007] 1 All ER 225)
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 In one case a patent had been revoked on being challenged, and in the other, the . .
(This list may be incomplete)
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Symbian Ltd -v- Comptroller General of Patents CA (Bailii, [2008] EWCA Civ 1066, Times, [2009] RPC 1)
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 . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 13-Jul-16
Ref: 276935
