Home » Patents (Page 35)
Category Archives: Patents
5 Common Misconceptions about “Software Patents”
Keltie is part of London Technology Week which runs from 16 to 20 June. As part of this, IPcopy takes a look at a few of the most common misconceptions regarding software patents (or more accurately patents for computer-implemented inventions):
1) You can’t patent software
Probably the most widely-held misconception is that patents can’t be granted for software inventions in the UK/Europe. This probably stems from the letter of the law which states that a program for a computer is not patentable…”as such”. These two words have led to a long and complicated history of court cases in the UK and Europe regarding the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.
In short, however, if it can be demonstrated the the software solves a technical problem (such as reducing the memory required or improving the efficiency of the process) it is possible to get a patent granted in the UK and Europe. (more…)
Some Reality Beyond the Gilded Cage – Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies
It’s the Summer of Patents at the Supreme Court of the United States of America! After a number of years when SCOTUS did its level best to ignore all patent matters, the coming into force of the America Invents Act and increased attention to patent issues in general commercial life seems to have created a climate in which the Supremes consider that their guidance on matters of patent law is more frequently needed – there is also a suggestion that the Supreme Court is less than impressed with recent CAFC decisions. One of the bumper crop of recent cases is Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., available here. Limelight addresses one of several issues relating to infringement of claims relating to activities involving multiple parties communicating electronically – can there be inducement to infringe a claim if no single party has directly infringed that claim? (more…)
And now Belgium ratify the UPC Agreement!
Following yesterday’s post about Sweden depositing its instrument of ratification in Brussels (Bork!), we were notified by reader Hans van de Heuvel that Belgium has now also deposited their instrument of ratification. This information is available on the Council of the European Union website here. This news brings the total official number of countries in the unitary patent system to four (after Austria, France and Sweden).
Next up on the list could be Denmark as this site appears to suggest they have now got Royal Assent for their UPC Act following their recent referendum.
IPcopy’s ratification infographic (see below) has been updated to reflect the news for Belgium (as we noted in yesterday’s post, for an answer to the question “What’s up with this infographic?“, please see the bottom of the ratification post which also contains full details about the ratification process). (more…)
Bork! Sweden ratifies UPC Agreement
Bork! (Image via Max Geiger/Flickr under creative commons (click image for link))
Update
According to the European Commission website, Sweden deposited its instrument of ratification on 5 June 2014 to become the third country to complete its ratification formalities. Sweden are involved in setting up a Nordic-Baltic regional division of the Unified Patent Court and join France and Austria as the three countries who have completed the ratification process. Belgium and Malta have ratified the agreement but not yet deposited their instruments of ratification.
IPcopy’s ratification infographic (see below) has been updated to reflect the news from Sweden (for an answer to the question “What’s up with this infographic?“, please see the bottom of the ratification post which also contains full details about the ratification process). (more…)
UPC: Preparatory Committee Progress Report
The website for the Preparatory Committee for the Unified Patent Court has just been updated with a progress report. Some highlights from the report are as follows: (more…)
A review of R19/12 and the successful Petitions for Review to date [Updated]
Applications for Petitions for Review at the EPO do not have a have a high success rate. Of the 105 currently-available Decisions relating to Petitions for Review, the vast majority have been found to be inadmissible; only four have resulted in a successful outcome for the applicant (i.e the decision under review being set aside) – R15/11, R21/11, R3/10 and R7/09, and one in a successful interim decision for the Petitioner, with the final decision still pending – R19/12, putting the current hit rate at just under 5 %.
Decision R19/12 issued in the last month or so, and makes for interesting reading. The Decision is only available in German – mine’s somewhat rusty, so there’s a (very!) crude machine translation here for anyone who is interested to see it*. It isn’t going to be affecting practice for any EPA’s, but it will have a significant impact on internal organisation at the EPO.
As well as taking a look at the reasons for the success-so-far of R19/12, this post will also delve a little deeper into the four successful Petitions to see how they come to succeed, and see what became of the patents after the proceedings were reopened… (more…)
You Say “Insolubly Ambiguous,” I Say “Reasonably Certain”
A Nautilus
Today on IPcopy we have a guest post from Maia H. Harris, Mark James FitzGerald, Ph.D., and Shayne Y. Huff, Ph.D of Nixon Peabody LLP on the recent Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments decision in the Supreme Court of the United States. Over to Maia, Mark and Shayne:
The United States Supreme Court Announced A New Standard For “Indefinite” Patent Claims, But It May Be Closer To The Same Old Thing
While critically important, claim construction has only infrequently received serious attention from the highest US Court. Let’s face it – claim construction is not exactly exciting. Maybe that’s why we were all so excited here in the US on Monday, when the Supreme Court issued a decision in Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments in which it set out a purportedly new standard for determining when a claim has met the US Patent Act’s requirement that a claim be clearly defined. The trouble is that we may have to wait a while before we figure out what that standard actually means. (more…)
An insight into Europe – the IP Box debate
Today on IPcopy we have a guest post from FTI Consulting on the subject of the EU Commission’s queries into the IP box regimes of Member States.
Concern over the slow economic recovery in the European Union has meant that tax policy in European Member States has increasingly been used as an instrument to help promote economic growth. Member States have historically had the right to set their own fiscal policies and many have used these to attract investment from particular industries or permit particular operations by companies in the hope to gain a larger share of global business. This has resulted in increased competition between countries not only in the way they set corporate tax rates but also in how they use tax incentives. However some domestic rules are now under the spotlight, as the European Commission starts to investigate certain regimes deemed unfair by their critics.
The latest round of European Commission queries have concerned IP box regimes, but this is now widening in scope to include tax rulings between a Member State’s tax authority and relevant companies as the Directorate General for Competition plays an increasing role in the investigations. (more…)
Apple WWDC 2014: what the patents say we can expect
What’s this? IPcopy doing an Apple patent themed post the week that the Worldwide Developer Conference starts? This couldn’t be a shameless SEO exercise could it? *
The WWDC, for those of you that don’t know, is Apple’s annual event for the software side of their business and a week long geekfest for those developers lucky enough to score one of the 5000 (or so) tickets on offer.
For the rest of us, the WWDC links in to that point of the year when speculation about Apple’s next products and services begins to ramp up. The WWDC is normally the point at which Apple fanbois find out what features the next version of the iOS operating system will be sporting in the next couple of months. For everyone else the WWDC is a chance to practice their best Apple put-downs and then to have a look over the feature list to find out what features their non iDevice might be sporting in the next 6 months….[Note to lawyers: that was a joke].
So, what do the patents suggest we could be seeing for iOS8?
Top Tip from the “Read the Manual” Archive – EPO Opposition Data on the Register
“Can I tell how many times a company (as a patent proprietor) has been opposed in EPO Opposition proceedings?”
This was the question that ipcopykaya and I considered late last Friday. Although the use of Google Patents was suggested we wondered whether the European Patent Register would provide us with the capability to search a particular Applicant and filter the results by opposed cases.
The EP Patents Register Advanced Search Menu is shown below. As indicated in the figure, it is possible to search for instances of a particular individual or company as Opponent. (more…)
IPcopy 