Invalidating patent claims

On January 7, 1791, France passed a patent law that stated that "Any new discovery or invention, in all types of industry, is owned by its author...". 14 out of 48 of the initial patents were for financial inventions. Consequently, they took the position that examiners would not have to determine if a claimed invention was a method of doing business or not.

Inventors paid a fee depending upon the desired term of the patent (5, 10, 15 years), filed a description of the invention and were granted a patent. In June 1792, for example, a patent was issued to inventor F. Dousset for a type of tontine in combination with a lottery. 1908), which held that a bookkeeping system to prevent embezzlement by waiters was unpatentable, were often read to imply a "business method exception", in which business methods are unpatentable. They would determine patentability based on the same statutory requirements as any other invention. This requirement could be met by merely requiring that the invention be carried out on a computer.

The World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) does not specifically address business method patents.

There is no general prohibition on the patentability of business methods in Australia.

Per Chapter II, Section 3, part (k) of the Indian Patent Act, business methods are not patentable per se. CLS Bank International (decided June 2014) requires that in order for a business method to be patentable, it must be “significantly more” than simply implementing a well-known business process on a computer.

However they are patentable if a new method solves a "technical" problem and an apparatus/system is involved. The immediate response of the USPTO to this decision as of July 2014 has been to essentially stop allowing business method patents.

This includes new types of e-commerce, insurance, banking and tax compliance etc.For a business method to be patentable, the algorithm cannot be the whole invention, but only one aspect of a novel combination. v The Attorney General of Canada, 2011 FCA 328, November 24, 2011 According to Brazilian Patent Law 9279, "commercial, accounting, financial, educational, advertising, raffling, and inspection schemes, plans, principles or methods" are not considered to be inventions or Utility Models.Under the European Patent Convention, "[s]chemes, rules and methods for (...) doing business" are not regarded as inventions and are not patentable, "to the extent that a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such".Business method patents are a relatively new species of patent and there have been several reviews investigating the appropriateness of patenting business methods.Nonetheless, they have become important assets for both independent inventors and major corporations. 1950), in which the court held that a patent on “blind testing” whiskey blends for consumer preferences would be “a serious restraint upon the advance of science and industry” and therefore should be refused.

Leave a Reply