Abstract
The Nuts and Bolts section of our Journal (mirrored on the ICCNS society web site), is meant to provide a very practical way to share useful information, that goes beyond the scope of cell signaling and basic CCN protein biology. Considering the number of requests we have had for information related to protection of Intellectual Property (IP), I am pleased to initiate what will be a series of articles that will focus on various IP topics. The inaugural topic is the protection of computer programs. Some colleagues may wonder how and why the patentability of computer programs is a topic of interest for scientists working on CCN proteins . . . As a matter of fact, to assist us in analyzing the potential involvement of CCN3 in human genetic diseases, we considered developing a computer program designed to analyze large amounts of data. Sharing the concepts and the computer program raised concerns regarding IP and protection of the software that we would handle. We believe that many colleagues have encountered similar problems. This article provides a short focus on computer program patentability. It is aimed to provide basic legal information, and to help our readers in understanding the process. It is not intended to replace IP counselors or technology transfer departments. Future articles will address other practical aspects of IP protection.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Article L112-2,13° Intellectual Property Code (Act No. 94–361 of 10 May 1994 art. 2 Official Journal of 11 May 1994). Article 10 of TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights),
Article L611 -10 of the Intellectual Property Code paragraph 2c ; Article 52, paragraph 2 of the European Patent Convention (Munich Convention of 5 October 1973, amended in 2010)
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2002:0092:FIN:EN:PDF
http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/guidelines.html—updated in 2013
TGI Paris 3rd c. March 19, 2010, No. 08 / 01998
EP1182581
Case number T 1051/07 April 24, 2010
The patent application 02021882 filed by Telekom Co. Ltd was rejected by the Examining Division of the EPO, for lack of inventive step
Decisions T 1173/97 and T 424/03 provided divergent positions about the distinction between computer-implemented claims and computer program claims. Decision T 1173/97 considered that computer programs are methods (not patentable) and T 258/03 considered that a method acquires a technical character when it involves technical means. Decisions T1177/97 and T 172/03 were not in agreement regarding the programmer’s activity.
Decision G 3/08 issue on May 2010
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership—http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Dr. J. Castellot for critical reading of the manuscript, and to Annick for support and editorial help.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Perbal, B. Focus on the patentability of computer programs. J. Cell Commun. Signal. 8, 67–70 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12079-014-0223-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12079-014-0223-0