• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

What are the key issues in relation to protection of computer-implemented inventions by the patent regime? What are the main alternative approaches to protecting IP investment in this field? What differences (if any) exist between the way CII patents are approached in the United Kingdom and Europe? How do those approaches compare with those of other national regimes?

Extracts from this document...


The key issue with regard to software in general is that it is remarkably difficult to classify it within a specific category of intellectual property protection[1]. Thus, on one side there is reasonable doubt that software per se provides for sufficient technological contribution to come under the to quid pro quo concept of patent system and thus is an excluded as subject matter to come under patentability[2]. On the other side, the are strong arguments that patent regime expands the protection of software, and allows a creator, without being obstructed by the boundaries of idea/expression dichotomy, to seek protection for the non-literal elements of software creation by claiming the functional aspects thereof[3]. However, the hurdle of sufficient technicality to come under the definition of an invention in terms of the respective patent law[4] and the various approaches thereto along with requirements to stand the plurality of tests for patentability with regard the key elements[5] of the patent system which are lively debated in the patent world. ...read more.


In Japan, software related inventions are patentable if such an invention can be defined as being a creation of technical idea utilizing laws of nature. Therefore, such as business method per se, computer programming language itself and gaming rules are non-statutory inventions[11]. Although the Japanese Practice gives guidance for formulation of claim preambles which make the wording meet this requirement[12], it remarkable that non-statutory inventions are to be rejected[13] if insufficiently utilizing the law of nature which is not required in statutes for the any other trilateral patent systems[14]. In my humble opinion, software inventions are a good thing also long as they confined within the strong containment of technological contribution. Thus, from evolutional view[15], with marriage of software and hardware in modern technology, software has established itself as quid pro quo related subject matter. Nevertheless, there is ample room for discussion how deal with software with low or none technicality. Some scholars suggest a sui generis system with lower monopoly terms seems to be most effective, and I agree thereto since it clears the patent thickens and lives up to reality of short life cycle products[16]. ...read more.


that was amended in many important respects by the UK Data Protection Act 2003; [7] Aerotel/Macrossan [2006] EWCA Civ 1371; Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1371; [2007] 1 All E.R [8] EPC Arts. 52(2)(c) 52(3) [9] EPC 2000 Art 52(1) in line with TRIPs. Art 27 [10] Paul Cole, ePatenting computer-implemented-inventions (CIIs) in the EPOÂf (Patentlyo Patent Law blog, 13 May 2010) <http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/05/patenting-computer-implemented-inventions-ciis-in-the-epo.html> accessed on 09 Oktober 2013 [11]JPO Examination Guidelines; Chapter 1 Computer Software-Related Inventions; Examples for successful Claims <http://www.jpo.go.jp/tetuzuki_e/t_tokkyo_e/Guidelines/7_1.pdf> accessed on 10 October 2013 [12]JPO Examination Guidelines; Chapter 1 Computer Software-Related Inventions <http://www.jpo.go.jp/tetuzuki_e/t_tokkyo_e/Guidelines/7_1.pdf> accessed on 10 October 2013 [13] Japan Patent Law, main paragraph of Art. 29(1) [14] Unique Japanese Patent Office Practice: Software Related Inventions < http://www.jpaa.or.jp/english/patent/unique_jpo_practices.html#subcontents4 > accessed on 10 October 2013 [15] Software, e.g. in control systems technology, completely absorbed the field of cam plates for control system engineering that was inventive subject matter at time when computers were not able to perform control methods for mechanical systems. [16] Richard Stern, 'Chapter 13: Sui Generis Protection of Software ' (Cases and Materials) Computer Law 484 <http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/ch-13.htm> accessed on 11 October 2013 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Intellectual Property Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Intellectual Property Law essays

  1. Implementation of Enterprise system at Dyson

    EIS as dividing the process into segment may lead to the loss of an understanding of the whole /which is more than the sum of parts. There are three generic methodology, Big -Bang, modular -integration and process orientating implementation. In BPR it mainly focus on the changes in the technical and behavioural level due to the implementation of new system.

  2. Intellectual Property Right

    This is because the prerequisite of human resources and technical capacity may be absent in those countries just as a driving license has little use if there is nobody who knows how to drive or without a car. 'Technology transfer and the development of a sustainable indigenous technological capability are

  1. Creative Commons - Rebalancing the Copyright Bargain in the Digital Age

    demonstrated with the implementation of the Copyright Term Extension Act, into the US Senate. Also known as the Sonny Bono or 'Mickey Mouse' Act,30 the Act extended the life of copyright terms on works by an additional 20 years,31 increasing terms for many works to include the life of the

  2. property law

    therefore petitioned the King directly, on the basis that if the judges did not have the discretion to apply abstract equity, then the King must still retain it. Consideration of these petitions was also delegated by the King, to the Chancellor2.

  1. Consider the idea of inventions the commercial exploitation of which would be contrary to ...

    and breeding material used for conventional breeding, and the critics? arguments that seed patents impose an abuse of the patent law by using it as a tool of misappropriation which turns agricultural resources into the intellectual property, the fact that Monsanto already owns 36% of the tomato seed varieties registered

  2. Critically analyse what makes for sufficient disclosure in the description of a patentable invention, ...

    which aims for a monopoly on any recombinant method of making the antigens is not justified as a claim because the essential features relevant for technical contribution as disclosed by the specification did not enable a person skilled in the art for the ?any recombinant of? scope of invention[14].

  1. Using the patent specification obtained from patent number GB2419438, briefly describe the nature of ...

    In Conclusion, it can be summarized that the enabling disclosure with regard to the General Tire test[11] sufficiently supports novelty by illustrating the known state of the art and presenting the solutions to solve its problems by specification and figures.

  2. What might be the greatest strengths of the patent system in its modern form, ...

    Thence, taking the above example the sectors of society which benefited are besides the private sectors of all industrial and service related businesses, the public welfare sector and the governmental as well as academia sector, which profited greatly with raise of the private sectors[9].

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work