ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "United Kingdom"

m (Infobox)
m (Quoted text: This is interpreted identical to the European Patent Convention, as noted by Lord Justice Jacob in the 2006 ''Aerotel v. Telco'' ruling: ''these appeals turn on the application o)
Line 10: Line 10:
 
:''(b) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or any other aesthetic creation whatsoever;''<br />
 
:''(b) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or any other aesthetic creation whatsoever;''<br />
 
:''(c) a scheme, rule or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business, or a program for a computer;''<br />
 
:''(c) a scheme, rule or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business, or a program for a computer;''<br />
:''(d) the presentation of information; but the foregoing provision shall prevent anything from being treated as an invention for the purposes of this Act only to the extent that a patent or application for a patent relates to that thing as such.''<br />
+
:''(d) the presentation of information; but the foregoing provision shall prevent anything from being treated as an invention for the purposes of this Act only to the extent that a patent or application for a patent relates to that thing as such.''
 +
 
 +
This is interpreted identical to the [[European Patent Convention]], as noted by Lord Justice Jacob in the 2006 ''Aerotel v. Telco'' ruling: ''these appeals turn on the application of Art.52(2) and 52(3) of the [[European Patent Convention|EPC]]. The provision was implemented in UK law by s.1(2) of the Patents Act 1977. Although s.1(2) pointlessly uses somewhat different wording from that of the EPC no-one suggests that it has any different meaning. So we, like the parties before us, work directly from the source.''<ref>http://www.patent.gov.uk/2006ewcaciv1371.pdf</ref>
  
 
==Sub-pages==
 
==Sub-pages==

Revision as of 04:23, 15 August 2009

country-region-todo

This page is also for information about the United Kindom.

Legislation

UK Patent Act 1977

Quoted text

(2) It is hereby declared that the following (among other things) are not inventions for the purposes of this Act, that is to say, anything which consists of —

(a) a discovery, scientific theory or mathematical method;
(b) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or any other aesthetic creation whatsoever;
(c) a scheme, rule or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business, or a program for a computer;
(d) the presentation of information; but the foregoing provision shall prevent anything from being treated as an invention for the purposes of this Act only to the extent that a patent or application for a patent relates to that thing as such.

This is interpreted identical to the European Patent Convention, as noted by Lord Justice Jacob in the 2006 Aerotel v. Telco ruling: these appeals turn on the application of Art.52(2) and 52(3) of the EPC. The provision was implemented in UK law by s.1(2) of the Patents Act 1977. Although s.1(2) pointlessly uses somewhat different wording from that of the EPC no-one suggests that it has any different meaning. So we, like the parties before us, work directly from the source.[1]

Sub-pages

External links

  • http://www.patent.gov.uk/2006ewcaciv1371.pdf