ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Germany"

(External links: add the 2002 ruling that used "forces of nature" - and English translation links of all articles)
(Digital Circuits: LJ Jacobs' comments)
Line 18: Line 18:
  
 
This [[legal wording]] was used in the EU by the anti-swpat campaign in September 2003.
 
This [[legal wording]] was used in the EU by the anti-swpat campaign in September 2003.
 +
 +
===UK's Lord Justice Jacobs' comments===
 +
 +
The UK 2006 [[Aerotel v. Telco]] ruling, page 49, notes:
 +
 +
:"''129. Two cases of the German BGH were brought to our attention. The first was Sprachananlyseeinrichtung (language analysing device) 11th May 220 X ZB 15/86 GRUR 200 1007, 454 OJ EPO 8-9/2002. The headnote accurately states the holding:''
 +
 +
::''“(a)An apparatus (computer) which is programmed in a specific way has technical character. The applies even if texts are edited on the computer.''
 +
 +
::''(b) For the purpose of assessing the technical character of such an apparatus it is not relevant whether the apparatus produces a (further) technical effect, whether technology is enriched by it or whether it makes a contribution to the state of the art.”''
 +
 +
:''130. For reasons we confess we do not fully understand the BGH considered that the case was not concerned with the computer program as such exclusion. It therefore did not find it necessary to consider the EPO case law on the point. Significantly, in the more recent case of Jesco Schwarzer 28th September 2004 17''
 +
 +
:''131. W (pat) 31/03, the BGH appears to have some reservations about Sprachananlyseeinrichtung, refusing to extend it to the image processing system of the claim because it was basically a claim to mathematical method as such even though it would implemented by a computer. Most significantly, however, the BGH declined to follow Hitachi (see para 3.2.2.).'''
  
 
===External links===
 
===External links===

Revision as of 07:21, 15 August 2009

country-region-todo

Legislation

Patent office practice

To be added.

Articles

See also

Case law

Digital Circuits

This important ruling introduced the test of "controllable natural forces".

This legal wording was used in the EU by the anti-swpat campaign in September 2003.

UK's Lord Justice Jacobs' comments

The UK 2006 Aerotel v. Telco ruling, page 49, notes:

"129. Two cases of the German BGH were brought to our attention. The first was Sprachananlyseeinrichtung (language analysing device) 11th May 220 X ZB 15/86 GRUR 200 1007, 454 OJ EPO 8-9/2002. The headnote accurately states the holding:
“(a)An apparatus (computer) which is programmed in a specific way has technical character. The applies even if texts are edited on the computer.
(b) For the purpose of assessing the technical character of such an apparatus it is not relevant whether the apparatus produces a (further) technical effect, whether technology is enriched by it or whether it makes a contribution to the state of the art.”
130. For reasons we confess we do not fully understand the BGH considered that the case was not concerned with the computer program as such exclusion. It therefore did not find it necessary to consider the EPO case law on the point. Significantly, in the more recent case of Jesco Schwarzer 28th September 2004 17
131. W (pat) 31/03, the BGH appears to have some reservations about Sprachananlyseeinrichtung, refusing to extend it to the image processing system of the claim because it was basically a claim to mathematical method as such even though it would implemented by a computer. Most significantly, however, the BGH declined to follow Hitachi (see para 3.2.2.).'

External links

External links