ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Amazon ruling by Canadian Federal Court on 14 October 2010"

(Excerpts: In terms of setting precedent, the approval or rejection of the patent application at this point isn't important. The core issue is that, unfortunately, the Canadian court has ruled th)
(note 37 pages)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{navbox}}
 
{{navbox}}
:''See: [http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/cc/amazon-dot-com.pdf the decision (PDF)]''
+
:''See: [http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/cc/amazon-dot-com.pdf the decision (37 pages, PDF)]''
 
'''Amazon v. Commissioner for Patents''' is a [[Canadian]] appeal which ruled that [[Amazon's one-click shopping patent]] could be patent eligible.  This case sets important precedent because it was decided based on whether or not this sort of [[business method]] constitutes [[patentable subject matter]] in Canada.
 
'''Amazon v. Commissioner for Patents''' is a [[Canadian]] appeal which ruled that [[Amazon's one-click shopping patent]] could be patent eligible.  This case sets important precedent because it was decided based on whether or not this sort of [[business method]] constitutes [[patentable subject matter]] in Canada.
  

Revision as of 13:04, 3 November 2010

See: the decision (37 pages, PDF)

Amazon v. Commissioner for Patents is a Canadian appeal which ruled that Amazon's one-click shopping patent could be patent eligible. This case sets important precedent because it was decided based on whether or not this sort of business method constitutes patentable subject matter in Canada.

Excerpts

[61] There is no basis for the Commissioner’s assumption that there is a “tradition” of excluding business methods from patentability in Canada. The only Canadian jurisprudence cited was made as obiter and in dissent by Arbour J. in Schmeiser.

[78] The absolute lack of authority in Canada for a “business method exclusion” and the questionable interpretation of legal authorities in support of the Commissioner’s approach to assessing subject matters underline the policy driven nature of her decision. It appears as if this was a “test case” by which to assess this policy, rather than an application of the law to the patent at issue.

So, the patent isn't granted, but the patent office was wrong to reject it based on subject matter. The application will now be re-examined to see if it meet the other criteria (obviousness, sufficient disclosure, etc.) but the patent office now has to presume that the subject matter requirement is met.

[79] There may be (and the Court is not suggesting that there are) other reasons why the Commissioner might have rejected this patent. [...]
[...]
[82] [...] The Commissioner’s decision is quashed and is to be sent back for expedited re-examination with the direction that the claims constitute patentable subject matter to be assessed in a manner consistent with these Reasons.

In terms of setting precedent, the approval or rejection of the patent application at this point isn't important. The core issue is that, unfortunately, the Canadian court has ruled that this sort of patents (patents on this category of idea) can be patented.

External links