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 to the four-stage process set out in Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd; Macrossan’s Patent Application.
Judges:
Richards, Lewison, Kitchin LJJ
Citations:
[2013] EWCA Civ 451
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – 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 In one case a patent had been revoked on being challenged, and in the other, the .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 by:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Lantana Ltd v The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks PatC 4-Sep-2013
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;
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.495178
