I/P Updates

The President of the EPO has now referred a series of questions on the patentability of computer programs to the Enlarged Board. This body has the ability to make a definitive statement of EPO practice and as such also carries significant weight in terms of the practice adopted by the UK-IPO and other national Patent Offices within Europe. In the light of this development, the UK-IPO will not seek to appeal the Symbian judgment further.

 

. . . The Enlarged Board of Appeal is a body made up of EPO Appeal Board members and international experts. Its decisions are binding on the EPO (although not the UK courts). The EPO President has referred questions on the computer program exclusion to the Enlarged Board because she is concerned that decisions of EPO Appeal Boards have not been consistent. Referral under Article 112(1)(b) EPC [October 22, 2008] 

 

. . . As with all UK court decisions the Symbian judgment is binding on the UK-IPO.

• more than 50% of the patent applications published worldwide are written in Japanese, Chinese or Korean
• KIPO receives 4th highest number of IP applications in the world (after US, JP and CN)
• every year more than 350 000 patent applications are filed in Japan
• between 1997 and 2007, domestic filings in China increased twelve fold and domestic filings in Korea doubled

Her presentation goes on to discuss

1. Challenges when searching East Asian data
2. Data sources & providers
3. Overview of free databases
4. Tips & tricks for searching
5. Bridging the time gap
6. Going beyond English abstracts
7. Overcoming language barriers
8. How the EPO can help

Get more East Asian Patent Information from the European Patent Office, and other such patent intelligence insights from the Intellectual Property Intelligence Blog.

"The application contains eleven claims, which Applicants argue together here. Claim 1 reads:

A method for managing the consumption risk costs of a commodity sold by a commodity provider at a fixed price comprising the steps of:

(a) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity provider and consumers of said commodity wherein said consumers purchase said commodity at a fixed rate based upon historical averages, said fixed rate corresponding to a risk position of said consumer;

(b) identifying market participants for said commodity having a counter-risk position to said consumers; and

(c) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity provider and said market participants at a second fixed rate such that said series of market participant transactions balances the risk position of said series of consumer transactions

". . . The question before us then is whether Applicants' claim recites a fundamental principle and, if so, whether it would pre-empt substantially all uses of that fundamental principle if allowed. Unfortunately, this inquiry is hardly straightforward. . . .

"The Supreme Court, however, has enunciated a definitive test to determine whether a process claim is tailored narrowly enough to encompass only a particular application of a fundamental principle rather than to pre-empt the principle itself. A claimed process is surely patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. See Benson, 409 U.S. at 70 ("Transformation and reduction of an article 'to a different state or thing' is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines."); Diehr, 450 U.S. at 192 (holding that use of mathematical formula in process "transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing" constitutes patent-eligible subject matter); see also Flook, 437 U.S. at 589 n.9 ("An argument can be made [that the Supreme] Court has only recognized a process as within the statutory definition when it either was tied to a particular apparatus or operated to change materials to a 'different state or thing'"); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 788 (1876) ("A process is . . . an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing.").7 A claimed process involving a fundamental principle that uses a particular machine or apparatus would not pre-empt uses of the principle that do not also use the specified machine or apparatus in the manner claimed. And a claimed process that transforms a particular article to a specified different state or thing by applying a fundamental principle would not pre-empt the use of the principle to transform any other article, to transform the same article but in a manner not covered by the claim, or to do anything other than transform the specified article.

". . . The machine-or-transformation test is a two-branched inquiry; an applicant may show that a process claim satisfies § 101 either by showing that his claim is tied to a particular machine, or by showing that his claim transforms an article. See Benson, 409 U.S. at 70. Certain considerations are applicable to analysis under either branch. First, as illustrated by Benson and discussed below, the use of a specific machine or transformation of an article must impose meaningful limits on the claim's scope to impart patent-eligibility. See Benson, 409 U.S. at 71-72. Second, the involvement of the machine or transformation in the claimed process must not merely be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Flook, 437 U.S. at 590.

". . . We hold that the Applicants' process as claimed does not transform any article to a different state or thing. Purported transformations or manipulations simply of public or private legal obligations or relationships,business risks, or other such abstractions cannot meet the test because they are not physical objects or substances, and they are not representative of physical objects or substances. Applicants' process at most incorporates only such ineligible transformations. See Appellants' Br. at 11 ("[The claimed process] transforms the relationships between the commodity provider, the consumers and market participants . . . ."). As discussed earlier, the process as claimed encompasses the exchange of only options, which are simply legal rights to purchase some commodity at a given price in a given time period. See J.A. at 86-87. The claim only refers to "transactions" involving the exchange of these legal rights at a "fixed rate corresponding to a risk position." See ′892 application cl.1. Thus, claim 1 does not involve the transformation of any physical object or substance, or an electronic signal representative of any physical object or substance. Given its admitted failure to meet the machine implementation part of the test as well, the claim entirely fails the machine-or-transformation test and is not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter.

". . .We leave to future cases the elaboration of the precise contours of machine implementation, as well as the answers to particular questions, such as whether or when recitation of a computer suffices to tie a process claim to a particular machine."

"In light of the present opinion, we conclude that the Freeman-Walter-Abele test is inadequate. . . . This test, in its final form, had two steps: (1) determining whether the claim recites an "algorithm" within the meaning of Benson, then (2) determining whether that algorithm is "applied in any manner to physical elements or process steps."

"The second articulation we now revisit is the "useful, concrete, and tangible result" thereby overruling the portions of its opinions in State Street Bank & Trust Co v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1998), that indicated that a claim is patent-eligible if it "produces a useful, concrete and tangible result.

" . . . [W]e also conclude that the "useful, concrete and tangible result" inquiry is inadequate and reaffirm that the machine-or-transformation test outlined by the Supreme Court is the proper test to apply.

However, the Court did not overrule the State Street Bank decision with regard to patent-eligibility for business methods:

"We further reject calls for categorical exclusions beyond those for fundamental principles already identified by the Supreme Court.22 We rejected just such an exclusion in State Street, noting that the so-called "business method exception" was unlawful and that business method claims (and indeed all process claims) are "subject to the same legal requirements for patentability as applied to any other process or method." 149 F.3d at 1375-76. We reaffirm this conclusion."

"This is the judgment of the court to which all members have contributed. It is on an appeal brought, with the permission of the Judge, by the Comptroller General of Patents against a decision of Mr Justice Patten. He allowed an appeal by Symbian Ltd against the Comptroller's decision refusing UK Patent Application No GB 0325145.1 ("the Application"), on the ground that the alleged invention was excluded from patentability by section 1(2) of the Patents Act 1977. The issue raised on this appeal requires us to consider the reach of the exclusion of "programs for computers" from patentable inventions, a topic which is inherently difficult and on which there is apparently inconsistent authority domestically and in the European Patent Office ("EPO"). . . ."

 

". . . It is, of course, inevitable that there will be cases where the EPO will grant patents in this field when UKIPO should not, at least so long as the view in Pension Benefit and Hitachi is applied by the Board and is not applied here. The fact that the two offices and their supervisory courts have their own responsibilities means that discrepancies, even in approach or principle, are occasionally inevitable. However, the fact that such discrepancies have been characterised as "absurd" by Nicholls LJ, and the reasoning in [3] of Conor emphasise the strong desirability of the approaches and principles in the two offices marching together as far as possible. This means that there is a need for a two-way dialogue between national tribunals and the EPO, coupled with a degree of mutual compromise. More directly relevant to the present appeal, it means that, where there may be a difference of approach or of principle, one must try to minimise the consequent differences in terms of the outcome in particular patent cases."

 

"For these reasons, we would dismiss this appeal."