Transcript PATENTABILITY OF SOFTWARE AND COMPUTER …

IP_Law_Galli
PATENTABILITY OF SOFTWARE
AND COMPUTER IMPLEMENTED INVENTIONS
IN EUROPE
PROBLEMS AND PERSPECTIVE
by
Prof. Cesare Galli
Studio Avv. Prof. Cesare Galli Milano-Brescia-Parma
IP_Law_Galli
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FRANCE
Art. 7 L. 68-1 2 Janvier 1968
“Ne constituent pas, en particulier, des inventions industrielles:
(…) notamment les programmes ou séries d’instructions pour le
déroulement des opérations d’une machine calculatrice”
FRENCH CASE LAW
Court of Appeal of Paris, 22 May 1973 (Mobil Oil)
A computer program for colour preparation is not patentable.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION
(5 October 1973)
Art. 52.2
“Programs for computers …. are not patentable … ”
IP_Law_Galli
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 - COPYRIGHT PROTECTION
FOR SOFTWARE ?
EEC DIRECTIVE no. 91/250
14 May 1991
(a) computer programs shall be protected by copyright, as
literary works within the meaning of the Berne Convention for the
Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
(b) to the extent that logic, algorithms and programming
languages comprise ideas and principles, those ideas and
principles are not protected, but
(c) the expression of those ideas and principles is to be
protected by copyright
IP_Law_Galli
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2 - COPYRIGHT PROTECTION
FOR SOFTWARE ?
EEC DIRECTIVE no. 91/250
(d) decompilation (reverse engineering) is admitted when it is
indispensable to obtain the information necessary to achieve the
interoperability of a computer program with other programs,
provided that some conditions are met and provided that the
information so obtained are not used for the development,
production or marketing of a computer program substantially
similar in its expression.
IP_Law_Galli
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION (EPC)
Art. 52.2
“Programs for computers … are not patentable …”
Art. 52.3
“…considered as such ”
“The reason why computer programs as such are not patentable
is that, like discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical
methods and presentations of information, they are not of a
technical nature.
“Computer implemented inventions through or inventions of
which those programs are an essential feature are subject to
general patent legislation. Thus, the key question with regard to
these inventions is whether or not they are of a technical nature.”
(Gall, EPO Legal Affairs Director, 1985)
IP_Law_Galli
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
LEGAL THEORY - 1
SOFTWARE INVENTIONS
CONSIDERED PATENTABLE
The above provisions of the EPC (and the corresponding
national patent legislation) that
exclude the patentability of that which is indicated in the
provisions only to the extent to which the patent application or the
patent concern discoveries, theories, plans, principles , methods
and programs “considered as such”
are clearly interpreted as
“reducing the scope of the bar on patenting to pure ‘mental
processes’”
(Vanzetti-Di Cataldo, Manuale di diritto industriale4, Milano,
2003,pp. 326-327)
IP_Law_Galli
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
LEGAL THEORY - 2
In particular, for what concerns software, the above
provisions of the EPC are interpreted as
“admitting the patentability of two categories of software
inventions:
(a) inventions in which the program causes a technical effect
within the computer or on other features of the computing
system, and
(b) inventions in which the program runs, through the
computer, a piece of apparatus or a procedure which is
external to the computer”
(Vanzetti-Di Cataldo, Manuale di diritto industriale4, Milano,
2003,pp. 326-327)
IP_Law_Galli
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EPO CASE LAW - 1
SOFTWARE INVENTIONS
CONSIDERED PATENTABLE
On this basis the following, for example, have been considered
patentable:
“a computer system for running financial and inventory
management ” (EPO Appeals Commission, 31 May 1995, in T
769/92, in EPO OJ, 1995, 525ff.)
“a system for determining the queue sequence for serving
customers at a plurality of service points (EPO Appeals
Commission, 12 November 1995, in T 1002/92, in EPO OJ,
1995, 605ff.)
Thus the key feature is the “technical contribution” which the
invention must be able to offer.
IP_Law_Galli
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EPO CASE LAW - 2
THE NOTION OF
“TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTION”
a “technical contribution” is offered by a computer program
only “if the program, when run or loaded onto a computer, causes a
technical effect that goes beyond the normal physical interactions
between the program (software) and the computer (hardware) on
which it runs”
(EPO Appeals Commission, 4 February 1999, in T 935/97, in RPC,
1999, 861ff.)
IP_Law_Galli
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EPO CASE LAW - 3
THE NOTION OF
“FURTHER TECHNICAL EFFECT”
“Normal physical effects are not, per sé, considered sufficient
to endow the computer program with a technical character”
However:
“if a program, when run on the computer, causes a further
technical effect, that goes beyond those normal physical
effects, it may be patentable”
(Guidelines for examination in EPO, October 2001 version, sub
art. 52.3 EPC)
IP_Law_Galli
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EPO CASE LAW - 4
BUSINESS METHODS APPLICATIONS
The simple “‘abstract’ claims of a business method are excluded
from patenting.
(Report on Comparative Study Carried Out Under Trilateral Project B3b,
Appendix 6, Business Methods applications, 2000)
Thus:
“a scheme for organising a commercial operation is not
patentable ”
vice versa:
“if the claim indicates computers, computer networks or other
programmable apparatus, or a relative program, in order to
realise at least some steps of a table, it must be examined as a
computer implemented invention”
(Guidelines for Examination in the EPO,
October 2001 version, sub art. 52.3 EPC)
IP_Law_Galli
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES:
A DIFFERENT APPROACH - 1
U.S. CODE,
35 U.S.C.
(PATENT ACT, 1952)
§ 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
IP_Law_Galli
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES:
A DIFFERENT APPROACH - 2
CASE LAW
Gottschalk v Benson [409 U.S. 63 (1972)]
The Supreme Court excludes the patentability of an algorithm
whose only application is its use in a computer, since this would
lead to an exclusive right on the algorithm considered per sé.
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v Signature Financial Group Inc.
[119 S.Ct 851 (1999)]
The Supreme Court upholds a 1998 decision of the Appeal Court,
which finds that the same general rules valid for every other
invention are also applicable to business methods inventions.
The key feature is again to establish whether the invention is only
an abstract idea (non-patentable) or if it also causes a technical
effect (patentable).
IP_Law_Galli
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TRIPs AGREEMENT
(1994)
Art. 27.1
Patents shall be available for any inventions, whether
products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided
that they are new, involve an inventive step and are
capable of industrial application.
Patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable
without discrimination as to (…) the field of technology.
IP_Law_Galli
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EC PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE
ON THE PATENTABILITY
OF COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED INVENTIONS
(2002)
HISTORY
20 February 2002: The Commission submitted a Proposal
19 September 2002: Opinion of the Economic and Social
Committee
24 September 2003: Position of the European Parliament
at first reading (Amendments to the Proposal)
24 January 2005: Common Position of the Council
(postponement)
IP_Law_Galli
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EC PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE
PREMISES
Ambiguity of the current legislative and case law situation
Serious differences between those who wish to strictly limit or
prohibit software patents and those who wish to harmonise the
regulation in line with the US positions.
Importance of the financial interests at stake
IP_Law_Galli
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EC PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE
PROPOSED SOLUTION
Confirmation of the general principle of a bar on the patenting of
software “considered as such”
Substantial alignment with the EPO position. In particular:
Definition of technical contribution as “a contribution to the state of
the art in a technical field, judged to be non-obvious by a person
skilled in the art” (EPO Guidelines: if the invention has solved a
technical problem in a way involving inventive step, it is clear there
is a technical contribution)
Ascertainment of technical contribution on the basis of all the
claims, also including non-technical aspects, it being understood
that the non-technical features may not be covered by a monopoly
in isolation from the technical features (EPO Guidelines)
IP_Law_Galli
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EC PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE
PARLIAMENT’S POSITION - 1
an algorithm is inherently non-technical and therefore cannot
constitute a technical invention. Nonetheless, a method involving
the use of an algorithm might be patentable provided that the
method is used to solve a technical problem. However, any patent
granted for such a method should not monopolise the algorithm
itself or its use in contexts not foreseen in the patent (WHEREAS
13/4)
IP_Law_Galli
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EC PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE
PARLIAMENT’S POSITION - 2
"computer-implemented invention" means any invention within
the meaning of the European Patent Convention the
performance of which involves the use of a computer, computer
network or other programmable apparatus and having in its
implementations one or more non-technical features which are
realised wholly or partly by a computer program or computer
programs, besides the technical features that any invention
must contribute (Article 2.1.b)
IP_Law_Galli
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EC PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE
PARLIAMENT’S POSITION - 3
“technical contribution”, also called "invention" , means a
contribution to the state of the art in a field of technology . The
technical character of the contribution is one of the four
requirements for patentability. Additionally, to deserve a patent,
the technical contribution has to be new, non-obvious, and
susceptible of industrial application. The use of natural forces to
control physical effects beyond the digital representation of
information belongs to a field of technology. The processing,
handling, and presentation of information do not belong to a
field of technology, even where technical devices are employed
for such purposes (Article 2.1.c)
IP_Law_Galli
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EC PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE
PARLIAMENT’S POSITION - 4
A patent claim to a computer program, either on its own or on a
carrier, shall not be allowed. (Article 5.1/2)
The rights conferred by patents granted for inventions within the
scope of this Directive shall not affect acts permitted under
Articles 5 and 6 of Directive 91/250/EEC, in particular under the
provisions thereof in respect of decompilation and interoperability.
(Article 6)
Member States shall ensure that, wherever the use of a patented
technique is needed for a significant purpose, such as ensuring
conversion of the conventions used in two different computer
systems or networks so as to allow communication and exchange
of data content between them, such use is not considered to be a
patent infringement (Article 6/2)
IP_Law_Galli
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EC PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE
DRAFT STATEMENT OF COUNCIL’S REASONS
The Council draft statement has taken on board, in full or in part,
many of the amendments proposed by the Parliament.
However, some differences still exist. In particular:
(a) The Council should include in Article 4.1 a clear statement to
the effect that a computer program as such cannot constitute a
patentable invention, but in Article 5 a paragraph should be added
in order to clarify that in certain circumstances and under strict
conditions a patent can cover a claim to a computer program, be it
on its own or on a carrier
(b) The Council should not take on board Art. 6/2 as proposed by
the Parliament , considering that the interoperability issue is
already sufficiently covered by Article 6
IP_Law_Galli
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EC PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE
A FURTHER AMENDMENT:
A WIDER REASEARCH EXEMPTION
Without prejudice to provisions concerning experimental use
and research exemption contained in member States patent
laws, acts permitted under Articles 5 and 6 of Directive
91/250/EEC, in particular under the provisions thereof in
respect of decompilation and interoperability, shall be neither
affected through the protection granted by patents for
inventions within the scope of this Directive nor restricted by
it.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
© 2005 by Avv. Prof. Cesare Galli Studio Legale Milano-Brescia-Parma
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IP_Law_Galli
AVV. PROF. CESARE GALLI
STUDIO LEGALE MILANO-BRESCIA-PARMA
Via Lamarmora 44 – I-20122 - Milano
Tel: +39 02 5412 3094 - 5412 4344
Fax: +39 02 5412 4344
Email: [email protected]
Brescia: Viale Venezia 44, I-25123.
Tel: +39 030 375 6773. Fax +39 030 375 6773 Email: [email protected]
Parma: Via Farini 37, I-43100. Tel: +39 0521 282 210.
Fax +39 0521 208 515 Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.iplawgalli.com
____________________________________________________
For further information or to contact us, use the above addresses
or visit the web site: www.iplawgalli.com.