The Australian High Court’s recent divisional ruling on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions will be clarified by future federal court decisions. In the meantime, we can identify important commonalities between the reasons for and against competing patentability, as well as some preliminary learnings.
No advances in computer technology required
A computer-implemented invention that results in “advancement in computer technology” is not necessarily patentable. The problem arose when Aristocrat attempted to patent an electronic game machine that implemented free “feature games” when certain conditions were met.
The Commissioner of Patents denied Aristocrat’s application on the grounds that the claimed invention did not involve a “process of manufacture” (Australia’s requirement for patentable subject matter). game machine).
On appeal from the Patent Office, a judge has reformulated the previous entitlement to patentability of computer-implemented inventions as a two-step test, first determining whether an invention is merely a scheme or business method. version has been applied. The second step asks if the invention lies in the computerization of the scheme. As the claims contained many physical elements, to his credit, he concluded that the invention was patentable because it was not just a scheme and thus the second issue did not arise. rice field.
In the following full courts, the majority adopted another two-part test. First, an invention must be characterized to determine whether it is a “computer-implemented invention.” Second, if so, the invention must be broadly described as an advance in computer technology.
To their credit, since the claim made no reference to the functionality of the code, they concluded that there were no advances in computer technology and that the increased player satisfaction was due to the functionality game itself rather than the code that embodies the game. .
Both the arguments against and the arguments in favor of rejecting the Full Court test, including the “advances in computer technology” requirement, suggest that a computer-implemented invention that solves a problem or results in an improvement in another field of technology may be appropriate. You seem to admit that you have sex. Subject to patent.
Characterization of the claimed invention is required
Despite agreeing that prior jurisprudence regarding the patentability of computer-implemented inventions was correctly held (as explained below), future inventions are patentable for their respective reasons. The criteria for determining whether
Pro Reasons Discussed Approaches of Key High Court Authorities Regarding Patentability NRDC If an invention results in artificial circumstances that produce a useful economic result, it is very likely that the invention is directed to patentable subject matter, and a computer-implemented invention that produces such a result is Note that it should not be treated any differently from the invention of machine. The same applies to implementations of digital representations of games, as claims of game rules combined with physical materials are generally patentable.
The anti-ground is that the invention is not a patentable game or idea because the invention does not involve “modifications or adjustments to general computer technology to affect new games or meet the needs of new games.” We proceed on the basis that there is. The game, which gave the claim character as an invention, [is] physically affected or a change in the state or information of any part of the machine”.
The words variation and adjustment have never been used in similar decisions before, and it can be said that almost every invention that incorporates a computer involves a change in the state or information of that machine. Despite these observations, these reasons are NRDC.
Past Federal Court Decisions Acknowledged
Both reasons confirm certain past decisions that have found computer-implemented inventions patentable.The reasons for opposition and for CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd (A method of using eight specific keystrokes on an English keyboard, meaning the combination of eight different brushstrokes that form Chinese characters, thereby enabling simple word processing) is a patentable invention.
Pro Reasons also held that any invention involving a “slave computer” interrupting the operation of a “central computer” and one of these computers providing improved results was a patentable computer-implemented invention, (condition I have also confirmed that the It suggests that inventions that used mathematical methods to enable computers to generate images of curves were also properly patentable.
Their Honor also specifically endorsed previous decisions by federal courts that found various inventions unpatentable. The focus was on whether there were any “computer improvements”.
Given legal differences, Australia’s position may be unique internationally
Both the arguments against and the arguments in favor caution against over-reliance on international patent law authorities in interpreting legal provisions that vary widely from country to country.
The US authorities’ adoption of the search for “computer improvements” can be understood in light of the following relevant provisions: Its useful improvements can be patented for it. “
To the extent that previous decisions relied on the UK authorities to require that computer-implemented inventions have “functions conducive to the technical character of the invention”, the Treaty on the Grant would bring into UK patent law Such trust was misplaced given the fundamental changes that were made. European patent (1973).
where from here?
Although clearer guidance would be desirable for industries developing and using developed technology that relies on computer-enabled operability, the full court’s approach to requiring demonstration of advances in computer technology was unanimous. Rejecting on match is useful.
The High Court’s decision is invalidated on the grounds that inventions in many fields may have provided useful technical results in those fields, but not in the field of computing. To the extent that there are difficulties posed by differences of reasoning, those issues are likely to be resolved in future litigation to consider whether the remaining claims of the patent at issue are valid. There is even the possibility of sending the matter back to the judge.[
IP Australia has indicated that it will “carefully review the decision and consider its implications” and that at this stage the Commissioner’s practice will be to consider that a claimed invention will not be patentable if it is merely directed to the implementation of an unpatentable idea in “conventional and well-understood computer technology”.
Finally, following the decision, it remains open to parties seeking or enforcing patents to argue that patents should be granted or, if granted, should be enforced (and not revoked) on the basis that they are directed to a method which is implemented by a computer to produce a useful result and amounts to more than mere manipulation of an abstract idea.
Parties considering their infringement risk arising from patents to computer enabled inventions will need to be aware of this development and consider their ability to respond by arguing that, properly construed, there is no technical contribution in the sense of an adaptation or alteration of known technology. The split decision of the High Court has enabled competing arguments to be made.
.
Comments
Post a Comment