- Unser Blog
This examination appeal concerns a system for caching information retrieved from a hardware security token, i.e. a smart card or any other tamper-resistant hardware device used to store digital credentials, cryptographic keys or the like. Since it was not even questioned that this is technical subject-matter, the decision is quite straight-forward and “only” deals with inventive step.
As we’ve talked about the #1 bad reason why startups should file patents, let’s take a look at the second worst reason: “Startups should file patents because they can generate licensing revenue” Also this reason is fine from an academic viewpoint. Patents are business assets just like physical objects. They can be bought and sold, exchanged, or “rented out”, i.e.
I’m just preparing some presentation slides for a talk I will be giving tomorrow at the Center for Digital Technology and Management, a joint institution of the two universities we have here in Munich. The topic of my lecture will be “IP strategies for startups” – and a large part will be about patents, obviously.
As in the previous decision, also this decision is rather bad news for software developers who intend to protect their creations with software patents. Some key takeaway messages: Neither modelling nor programming is, by itself, a technical undertaking Modifications to a programming language that enable the programmer to develop a program with greater ease, speed or accu ...
Software Patents Worldwide, Kluwer Law International As every year, I’ve used the Christmas holidays to update my contribution to Software Patents Worldwide. It’s a comprehensive loose-leaf collection published by Kluwer Law International and provides expert insights and how-to guidance on drafting software patent claims in the world’s key markets.
This is an interesting decision for programmers, since the EPO Board of Appeal 3.5.06 had to decide whether the reduction of the execution time of a computer-implemented method is a technical effect and thus potentially patentable. The board’s answer in a nutshell: The improved speed of a computer program is not by itself a technical contribution to the art.
Talking about software patent eligibility, allow me a quick rant about the flaws of the infamous “abstract idea” test: Honestly, I believe the Mayo/Alice two-step test causes much more harm than good: What kinds of ideas are too “abstract” for a patent? Doesn’t every invention start with an idea? Who can tell the difference between an abstract idea and a “concrete” idea (I wonder what that .
For all readers interested software patent-related case law, here’s the March’16 roundup: New EPO software patent case law Giving nicknames to business contacts: no technical contribution EP 1 770 625 A1Case T 2428/11 concerned an examination appeal against the rejection of European patent application No. EP 1 770 625 (“Communicating with business customers”).
This post summarizes the prosecution process of German patent applications and the enforcement of German patents. The explanations mostly apply to software-related patents as well as to any other German patent regardless of its technical field. How to get a German software patent? Patent protection in Germany can be obtained either nationally by filing a national German patent ...
While the impact of Alice on US software patents is still heavily discussed, 2016 has so far not produced any revolutionary software-related decisions by the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) or the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH). The German Federal Patent Court (BPatG), however, has been quite busy.
In addition to patents, there is a utility model in Germany, which is codified in the Utility Model Act (“Gebrauchsmustergesetz”, GebrMG). In contrast to patents, which are substantively examined before grant, German utility models are registered after an examination for formal criteria only. Since a utility model is not substantially examined prior to registration, its vali ...
Software patents in Germany: Should you file with the EPO or the German Patent Office? Today, patent protection in Germany can be obtained either nationally by filing a national German patent application with the German Patent and Trademark Office (GPTO); or by validating a European patent granted by the EPO and designating Germany.
Fig. 2 of DE 101 15 895 C1 The Federal Court of Justice (FCJ)’s decision Webpage Display is currently the latest landmark decision dealing with the general methodology behind the patentability of software-related inventions. It establishes the German three-step examination approach and thereby systematically deviates from the two-step approach established at the Boards of Appeal ...
With the decision Display of Topographic Information the Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) continued its examination methodology for software-related inventions laid out in the Dynamical Generation of Documents decision. In addition, the FCJ held that inventive step (the third hurdle of the German three-step approach) can only be based on the technical features of a patent claim.
Patent applications on new types of GUIs oftentimes run into trouble in Germany because the examiners consider them to be “presentation of information“. As the avid reader will know, the presentation of information is one of the items on the list of subject-matters excluded “as such” from patent protection.
Are claims to a computer program acceptable? If a software-related invention meets the basic patentability criteria and thus is not excluded from patent protection, it can be protected in Germany by all types of claims, including claims directed to a computer program per se. Are claims for a data carrier necessary? Since a non-excluded software-related invention can be protec ...
Is software patentable subject matter in Germany? Yes, if the software is related to an invention which has a technical character and provides a technical contribution to the prior art by solving a technical problem. By contrast, if the software solves only a business-related problem and no technical considerations are involved in its solution, the software is not patentable in Germany.
The Federal Court of Justice (FCJ)’s Airplane Status decision (BGH X ZB 1/15 – Flugzeugzustand) concerns another item on the list of subject-matters excluded from patent protection “as such”, namely mathematical methods. The patent application under consideration concerned a method for determining the position, velocity and orientation of an airplane.
Initially, software in Germany was to be protected by copyright. However, the great deficiency of copyright protection for software is that the concepts and fundamental ideas underlying the programmed software code cannot be protected by copyright. This is the reason why patents are more attractive for protecting the intellectual property (IP) embodied in the software.
The decision Dynamical Generation of Documents of 22 April 2010 is one of the most important landmark decisions with regard to the patentability of software in Germany, since it establishes the German “three-step approach” for assessing the patentability of software patents, as it is valid today. The case at stake The case to be decided was the rejection of a German patent application.