Skip to main content

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

More than five centuries ago the first patent statute was passed by the Venetian senate. It already had most of the features of modern patent law, recognizing the public interest in innovation and granting exclusive right in exchange for a full disclosure. Some 350 years later the industrial revolution led to globalisation. The wish to protect intellectual property on a more international level evolved and supranational treaties were negotiated. Patent laws are still different in many countries, however, and inventors are sometimes at a loss to understand which basic requirements should be satisfied if an invention is to be granted a patent. This is particularly true for inventions implemented on a computer. While roughly a third of all applications (and granted patents) relate, in one way or another, to a computer, applications where the innovation mainly resides in software or in a business method are treated differently by the major patent offices. The procedures at the USPTO, JPO and EPO and, in particular, the differences in the treatment of applications centring on software are briefly explained. In later sections of this book, a wealth of examples will be presented. The methodology behind the treatment of these examples is explained.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Strasbourg Agreement was negotiated in 1971 and entered into force in 1975.

  2. 2.

    The US patents concerned were US6317592, US6272190, US6198783, US6067451, US5819172, US5751773, US5745532, US5631946, US5625670, US5438611 [31].

  3. 3.

    Tukey is also credited in the “Annals of the History of Computers” as the person who, in 1946, coined the word “bit”, a contraction of “binary digit”, the term describing the 1s and 0s that are the basis of computer programs. Tukey suggested the shorter “bit” to computer experts at AT&T Bell Laboratories, where he was a researcher. “Bit” was easier on the tongue than the other possibilities they were considering, such as “binit” and “bigit”, so it stuck. Twelve years later, Tukey came up with the word “software” to describe the programs on which electronic calculators ran, first using it in a 1958 article he wrote for American Mathematical Monthly.

  4. 4.

    Although State Street Bank paved the way, it only dealt with “a data processing system for managing financial services …”. The first case where indeed a method was examined by the Court of Appeal was CAFC 98-1338 AT&T vs. EXCEL [13].

  5. 5.

    35 USC 101: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title”.

  6. 6.

    “European patents shall be granted for any inventions in all fields of technology which are susceptible of industrial application, which are new and which involve an inventive step”.

  7. 7.

    Which is not necessarily a document, see (iii)(a).

  8. 8.

    Where the claim refers to an aim to be achieved in a non-technical field, this aim may legitimately appear in the formulation of the problem as part of the framework of the technical problem that is to be solved (Cf. T641/00 COMVIK [22]).

References

  1. See http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-946.htm; last visited 18 August 2009

  2. Institute for Telecommunication Services; Glossary of Telecommunication Terms. http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-034/_4956.htm. Accessed 07 January 2009

  3. Recommendations for Consideration by the Incoming Administration Regarding THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, http://www.theglobalipcenter.com/NR/rdonlyres/e5txnmjhsn5mjbtvtazna33y3dimpz5cuxtgjeix4wix3dqpiy5domrryniqsbo6rr7xbe64tcijitq6hxnlts7u3xb/USPTOPatentProjectFINAL.pdf; last accessed 13 January 2009

  4. Raising the Bar on Patent Quality, http://www.epo.org/about-us/office/annual-reports/2007/focus.html; last visited 13 January 2009.

  5. John Tukey; Coined the Words “software” and “bit”. LA Times, July 29, 2000, http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jul/29/local/me-61253, last accessed 6 March 2009

  6. CAFC 96-1327 State Street Bank vs. Signature, http://www.law.emory.edu/fedcircuit/july98/96-1327.wpd.html, last accessed 6 March 2009

  7. US5960411; EP published application EP0902381

    Google Scholar 

  8. Decision of the Board of Appeal T1173/97 & T935/97 Computer program product Reasons 4.1, http://legal.european-patent-office.org/dg3/pdf/t971173ep1.pdf

  9. Decision of the Board of Appeal T931/95 Pension benefit scheme /PBS, http://legal.european-patent-office.org/dg3/pdf/t950931ep1.pdf

  10. T258/03 Auction method/HITACHI; Reasons 4.6. http://legal.european-patent-office.org/dg3/pdf/t030258ep1.pdf

  11. Venetian Statute on Industrial Brevets (1474), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450–1900), eds. L. Bentley & M. Kretschmer, http://www.copyrighthistory.org; last visited 18 August 2009

  12. Referral G3/08 to the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office; http://www.epo.org/topics/issues/computer-implemented-inventions/referral.html, last accessed 17 March 2009

  13. CAFC 98-1338; see http://www.law.emory.edu/fedcircuit/apr99/98-1338.wp.html, last visited 26 May 2009

  14. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), http://supreme.justia.com/us/450/175/, last visited 26 May 2009

  15. Decision by the German Federal Court of Justice Logikverifikation: BGH ref X ZB 11/98: “A process that involves – prior to the physical production – an intermediate step performed substantially with the aid of computers cannot be excluded from patentability on the grounds that it refrains from making direct use of controllable forces of nature if the solution seeks to promote the possibility of manufacturing technically workable products in a different manner by technical knowledge”

    Google Scholar 

  16. Presentation by Keiko KAWAKAMI and Yutaka OSAWA at the European Patent Office on May 16, 2008 “Obtaining Patents on Computer Implemented Inventions in Japan”: http://www.miplc.de/cii/information/schedule/2008-05_MIPLC_CII-Kawakami_revised.pdf, last accessed on 26 March 2009

  17. Harold C.Wegner: “Patent Harmonization on the pacific rim”, 1995, http://apli.org/ftp/pacific-rim.pdf, last accessed 7 March 2009

  18. US5,960,411 Hartman; Peri (Seattle, WA), Bezos; Jeffrey P. (Seattle, WA), Kaphan; Shel (Seattle, WA), Spiegel; Joel (Seattle, WA), Method and system for placing a purchase order via a communications network

    Google Scholar 

  19. EP Amazon application

    Google Scholar 

  20. http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=66704c14-1799-4bf2-95b1-11fb3b810c2d; last accessed 22 March 2009; see also http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/409473; last accessed 22 March 2009

  21. http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/;L last accessed 23 March 2009

  22. T641/00 Two identities/COMVIK; headnote

    Google Scholar 

  23. Japanese Patent Law (English translation): http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/text_html.jsp?lang=en&id=2652, last accessed 26 March 2009

  24. T38/86 Text Processing/IBM, Head note

    Google Scholar 

  25. http://www.vawd.uscourts.gov/OPINIONS/CONRAD/DEDELLMSJ2.PDF, last accessed 25 March 2009

  26. Guidelines of the USPTO, last accessed 14 March 2009 http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100.htm

  27. 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), last accessed 14 March 2009, http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/149/149.F3d.1368.96-1327.html

  28. In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (2008), http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/07-1130.pdf, last accessed 14 March 2009

  29. Guidance for examining process claims in view of In Re Bilski: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/documents/bilski_guidance_memo.pdf, last accesses 24 March 2009

  30. Examination Guidelines for Patent and Utility Model in Japan; Computer Software Related Invention: http://www.jpo.go.jp/cgi/linke.cgi?url=/tetuzuki_e/t_tokkyo_e/1312-002_e.htm; last accessed 24 March 2009

  31. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTP, _Inc., last accessed 24 March 2009

  32. Princeton University Archives. Department of Rare Books and Special Collections. Princeton University Library

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Falk Giemsa .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Closa, D., Gardiner, A., Giemsa, F., Machek, J. (2010). Introduction. In: Patent Law for Computer Scientists. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-05078-7_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-05078-7_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-05077-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-05078-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics