tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19210793.post7856744498870126978..comments2023-05-23T04:41:58.939-04:00Comments on IPEG: British Court of Appeal reviews business method and software patentsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19210793.post-31540968554165394992007-02-14T23:30:00.000-05:002007-02-14T23:30:00.000-05:00Regarding -'It is a judgment that appears to be ti...Regarding -<BR/><BR/>'It is a judgment that appears to be tinged with regret ... because the Court was obliged to apply Merrill Lynch with its emphasis on “technical contribution”. It is apparent that the Court would have preferred to view technical contribution as inherent in the question, “does the contribution consist of excluded subject matter as such?”.',<BR/><BR/>hasn't, in fact, the Court of Appeal in Aerotel/Macrossan revived Falconer J's contribution approach in the Merrill Lynch High Court case (the very approach which the Court of Appeal previously expressly overrulled when the Merrill Lynch case reached the Court of Appeal)? ...<BR/><BR/>At paragraph 26(1) of the Court of Appeal Judgment, the Court gave the following summary of the "contribution approach" (and identified where it came from and how the Court of Appeal had itself previously expressly rejected it) –<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Ask whether the inventive step resides only in the contribution of excluded matter – if yes, Art.52(2) applies. This approach was supported by Falconer J in Merrill Lynch but expressly rejected by this Court."<BR/><BR/>Yet in adopting the Comptroller's suggested 4 step test (refer to paragraphs 41, 47 & 49 of the Court of Appeal Judgment), steps 2 and 3 of which are as follows –<BR/><BR/><BR/>"(2) identify the actual contribution;<BR/><BR/>(3) ask whether it falls solely within the excluded subject matter",<BR/><BR/>the Court of Appeal seems have to revived Falconer J's expressly rejected "contribution approach". And wouldn't a suggestion otherwise merely be an exercise in semantics?<BR/><BR/>Also, is this not unsurprising given the Court's apparent fondness for the "contribution approach" which it showed at paragraph 32 of the Court of Appeal Judgment when it said –<BR/><BR/>"What then of the first, the "contribution" approach? Were the question open for free decision now, we think there is a lot to be said for it."?<BR/><BR/>(The above is one of a number of commentaries about the Court of Appeal judgment which - now that the House of Lords has refused to grant me permission to appeal - I have posted at<BR/>http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/patentappeal.php ).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19210793.post-29969564206796623302006-11-02T14:03:00.000-05:002006-11-02T14:03:00.000-05:00Nevertheless, even following such a clarification,...<i>Nevertheless, even following such a clarification, given the EPO case law (however contradictory in approach) in our view it is unlikely that business methods will become patentable in Europe (as they are in the USA). </i><br /><br />They already are to a certain extent. Someone looked at which US business methods (class 705) have a European equivalent and found <a href="http://www.epip.ruc.dk/Papers/Wagner_Paper.pdf">quite a bunch</a> of those.Jonas Maebehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02458193496621283799noreply@blogger.com