ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "Case law"
(→Related pages on {{SITENAME}}: demote Germany to being just one of many Germanies :-)) |
(→Related pages on {{SITENAME}}: * Patent governance) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
* [[Case law in the USA]] | * [[Case law in the USA]] | ||
* [[How to read patents]] | * [[How to read patents]] | ||
| + | * [[Patent governance]] | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
Revision as of 11:04, 16 May 2010
Case law is only really of interest to us if it's based on "patentable subject matter" - what categories of ideas can or cannot be patented.
Case law on subject matter
There are many criteria on which a court can rule a patent to be invalid. A court might say the patent wasn't original enough, or wasn't sufficiently innovative. Those court rulings are not very interesting for our goal of excluding software from patentability. An example is the ruling in Germany which invalidated Microsoft's Fat32 patent.[reference needed]
Examples of useful rulings include Aerotel v. Telco (2006, UK), and in re Bilski (2008, USA).
Related pages on ESP Wiki
- Category:Case law by region
- Case law in Germany
- Case law in the UK
- Case law in the USA
- How to read patents
- Patent governance
