ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "Case law"
(→Case law on subject matter: ==Case law around the world== ===Canada=== * Amazon v. Commissioner for Patents (2010, Canada) ===England and Wales=== :''See: Case law in the UK'' ===Ger) |
('''Case law''' is a special subset of court cases which give definitions about how patent law is to be interpreted in the given country. The most important cases define what is and isn't [[patent) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{navbox}}'''Case law''' is | + | {{navbox}} |
| + | '''Case law''' is a special subset of court cases which give definitions about how patent law is to be interpreted in the given [[country]]. The most important cases define what is and isn't [[patentable subject matter]]. | ||
==Case law on subject matter== | ==Case law on subject matter== | ||
| Line 8: | Line 9: | ||
==Case law around the world== | ==Case law around the world== | ||
| + | |||
| + | :''(For general litigation, see [[List of lawsuits]])'' | ||
===Canada=== | ===Canada=== | ||
| Line 27: | Line 30: | ||
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ||
* [[:Category:Case law by region]] | * [[:Category:Case law by region]] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
* [[How to read patents]] | * [[How to read patents]] | ||
* [[Patent governance]] | * [[Patent governance]] | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{footer}} |
[[Category:Understanding the patent system]] | [[Category:Understanding the patent system]] | ||
[[Category:Court cases and litigation]] | [[Category:Court cases and litigation]] | ||
Revision as of 13:15, 3 November 2010
Case law is a special subset of court cases which give definitions about how patent law is to be interpreted in the given country. The most important cases define what is and isn't patentable subject matter.
Contents
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).
Case law around the world
- (For general litigation, see List of lawsuits)
Canada
England and Wales
- See: Case law in the UK
Germany
- See: Case law in Germany
United States of America
- See: Case law in the USA
