The applicant appealed rejection of its application for a patent for a method and apparatus for modelling synthetic crystalline structures. The apparatus would involve (indeed consist of) a computer programmed for the task.
Held: A pure software application or method did not become registrable merely because it took control of a computer screen; it was still software. It was in substance a method of performing a mental act since the result depended on the personal skill and assessment of the user in selecting certain criteria for the modelling process.
Judges:
Laddie J
Citations:
Times 18-Jun-1996, [1996] RPC 511
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – In Re Patent Application No 9204959 by Fujitsu Ltd CA 14-Mar-1997
A computer program modelling a crystal structure is not patentable; it was not a hardware function, and software is not capable of protection under Patents law. Aldous LJ repeated his concern at the so called ‘technical contribution test’ for . .
Cited – 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 In one case a patent had been revoked on being challenged, and in the other, the .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 – Blacklight Power Inc v The Comptroller-General of Patents PatC 18-Nov-2008
The applicant appealed against the refusal of two patents by the respondent.
Held: The standard of proof to be applied on objections to patentability was the same which applied when testing for exclusions. The standard was the balance of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.81676
