Difference between revisions of "United Kingdom"
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) |
(note PM's Office comment) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Legislation== | ==Legislation== | ||
| − | [http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_act/1977/1344006.html UK Patent Act 1977] | + | [[Patentable subject matter]] in the UK is defined in the following part of the [http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_act/1977/1344006.html UK Patent Act 1977]: |
| − | |||
''(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 —''<br /> | ''(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 —''<br /> | ||
:''(a) a discovery, scientific theory or mathematical method;''<br /> | :''(a) a discovery, scientific theory or mathematical method;''<br /> | ||
| Line 14: | Line 13: | ||
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> | 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> | ||
| − | == | + | ==Prime Minister's Office comments== |
| + | |||
| + | In a February 2007 response to a petition, the Prime Minister's Office commented that "''Although certain jurisdictions, such as the US, allow more liberal patenting of software-based inventions, these patents cannot be enforced in the UK. The test used to discern between patentable and non-patentable subject matter in the UK has recently been clarified by the courts, and is applied rigorously by the Patent Office.''" <ref>http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page11077</ref> In 2008, the UK courts upheld a patent which was very certainly a software patent. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}== | ||
* [[Patent office practice in England and Wales]] | * [[Patent office practice in England and Wales]] | ||
* [[Case law in England and Wales]] | * [[Case law in England and Wales]] | ||
Revision as of 05:45, 15 August 2009
This page is also for information about the United Kindom.
Contents
Legislation
Patentable subject matter in the UK is defined in the following part of the UK Patent Act 1977:
(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]
Prime Minister's Office comments
In a February 2007 response to a petition, the Prime Minister's Office commented that "Although certain jurisdictions, such as the US, allow more liberal patenting of software-based inventions, these patents cannot be enforced in the UK. The test used to discern between patentable and non-patentable subject matter in the UK has recently been clarified by the courts, and is applied rigorously by the Patent Office." [2] In 2008, the UK courts upheld a patent which was very certainly a software patent.
Related pages on ESP Wiki
External links
- http://eupat.ffii.org/players/uk/index.en.html
- http://www.softwarepatents.co.uk/
- BTG patent on downloading software
- A 2004 letter from MP Richard Allan to the UK's Council representative
- OSS-watch's swpats page
- A 1998 conference report that mentions political pressures for the extension of swpats into Europe
