ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Israel

Revision as of 19:17, 11 November 2009 by Ciaran (talk | contribs) (Software patents returning?)
country-region-todo

Israel's patent office opened a consultation on software patents in November 2009. The deadline for submissions is 15 February 2010.

Legislation

Section 3 of the Israeli Patents Law defines what types of innovations are patentable subject matter. It says:

"3. An invention, whether a product or a process in any field of technology, which is new and useful and capable of industrial application and which involves an inventive step - is a patentable invention."

This text was brought into force on in January 2000 in reaction to the TRIPS treaty.

September 2006: software patents abolished

In September 2006, the Commissioner of Patents in Israel invalidated a patent titled "Method of Promoting the Sale of Goods and/or Services". All parties agreed that this was a business method patent.

The patent was rejected by the Commissioner on the grounds that it failed to meet the "field of technology" requirement of the Israeli Patents Law.

Commentators Hausman and Berdugo (patent lawyers?) note that the Commissioner did say patents could be granted on "patentable hardware component and a non-patentable software component", but this confirmation is inconsequential. It just means that hardware innovations are patentable, and if you add some software, the patentability of the hardware innovation isn't affected.

Software patents returning?

In response to the abolition of software patents, a pro-software-patent lobby group, AIPPI organised a public meeting with the Commissioner and Ehud Hausman (a patent lawyer). Hausman reported in May 2008 that the IPO is now allowing (some? all?) software patents (but is still not granting business method patents).

Case law

The Hausman and Berdugo document references a case called the "1994 decision of the Jerusalem District Court, C.A. 23/94 (Jerusalem) United Technologies Corporation v. The Registrar of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, District Court Decisions, Vol. 26 (8), 729"


External links