All Things Newz
Law \ Legal

European Software Patentability: Sex, Drugs And Rock ‘n’ Roll – The Rise Of The Further Technical Effect – Patent


The long and winding code – a short history of European
software patentability through the lens of pop culture

We’re taking you on a journey through the history of
software patents in Europe, through the lens of pop culture. By
zooming out and looking at the big picture of what the EPO has
taught us over the years, we’ll be building up a clear vision
on what you need to do to improve the success of your software
patents at the EPO. At each step along the way through history,
we’re stopping to see a case where the EPO redefined the law in
a way that is still applied today.

In our first decade travelling through software patents in
Europe, we have seen software patents looking to be killed off from
birth when the European Patent Convention (EPC) seemed to exclude
them from protection as set out in “European software
patentability: A new hope”. We then had to wait until 1986 to
see our story back on track, when we were taught in Vicom that
software patents could be granted if they were
“technical”, as discussed in “European software
patentability: That’s not technical, this is technical”.
Our story now takes us to a new decade – the 1990s.

Instalment III: The rise of the further technical effect

Europe in the 90s was a time of hedonism not seen since the 60s.
In 1998, nearly a decade after the fall of the wall, Berlin and
Frankfurt saw themselves at the centre of the European Techno
scene. The newly unified Germany had become the new mecca of dance
music following Detroit’s rein in the late 80s and early 90s
slowly fading. Whilst over the English channel in the UK,
super-clubs were all the rage with world-renowned clubs like Cream,
Fabric, Gatecrasher, and Ministry of Sound at the centre of the
global clubbing scene. With the election of Gerhard Schroder in
Germany and Tony Blair in the UK the preceding year, there was also
a political buoyancy across Europe. The music, the drugs, the
political climate and overall positive spirit was taking Europe
further, some might say to another level.

That same year, it would seem that this positivity was rubbing
off on the EPO too, as they issued the landmark IBM decision, which
clarified what we had been taught in Vicom. The EPO wanted more,
they wanted to see software patents taken to another level too. In
the IBM decision the EPO showed that for software to be patentable
it needed to produce a “further technical effect”. So
what do we mean by a “further technical effect” and why
is the concept useful?

This decision was so useful because from Vicom, we were taught
that software may be patentable if it is “technical”. But
what does “technical” mean? Obviously, software needs to
be run on a computer. If we add the computer to the claim, does
that make it “technical”? Well IBM told us that simple
additions such as the addition of hardware components to the claim
is not enough. A “further technical effect” needs to be
seen. This concept is described well in the EPO’s Guidelines
for Examination (G-II, 3.6)

“A “further technical effect” is a technical
effect going beyond the “normal” physical interactions
between the program (software) and the computer (hardware) on which
it is run. The normal physical effects of the execution of a
program, e.g. the circulation of electrical currents in the
computer, are not in themselves sufficient to confer technical
character to a computer program”.

This defines what a “further technical effect” is
not, so what is one? Helpfully the EPO Guidelines are on
hand to help with that too by providing a whole host of useful
examples (G-II, 3.6.1). In this section of the EPO’s
Guidelines it is stated that:

“a computer program which specifies a method of
controlling an anti-lock braking system in a car, determining
emissions by an X-ray device, compressing video, restoring a
distorted digital image, or encrypting electronic communications
brings about a further technical effect when it is run on a
computer”.

These are the clearer cut examples. It goes onto provide
arguably more borderline, and arguably therefore more useful,
examples such as “computer programs implementing security
measures for protecting boot integrity or countermeasures against
power analysis attacks”
, software for “processor
load balancing or memory allocation”
.

In general, showing that a further technical advantage is
achieved, whether it be increased processing speed, reduced
processing or memory resource, reduced bandwidth, or improved
security, is usually a step in the right direction for showing that
there is a “further technical effect”. Another way to
think about this point, is that for there to be a “further
technical effect” there needs to be a technological
improvement in the real world. Will better mathematics be
patentable? No. Will better mathematics for implementing a better
pension scheme be patentable? Still no. It is in the real-world,
but it is one excluded area (mathematical methods) applied to
another (methods for doing business). Will better mathematics for
processing images? Maybe. Well, it probably wouldn’t be
excluded, but don’t forget that you have to then show that the
invention is also novel and inventive. The same logic is applied by
the EPO when dealing with AI inventions. Is better AI patentable?
No. Is better AI for image analysis? Maybe, provided it is also
novel and inventive.

The IBM case itself sums this up rather neatly, stating that

“A computer program product is not excluded from
patentability”… “if, when it is run on a computer, it
produces a further technical effect which goes beyond the
“normal” physical interactions between program (software)
and computer (hardware)”.

On our journey through European software patent history, it has
taken over 20 years from 1977 to 1998 to get to this point, but
IBM, marks the beginning of the EPO providing real clarity on
software patentability in Europe. We now know that the exclusions
from patentability set out in the European Patent Convention (EPC)
don’t apply if the invention is “technical”, and that
for the invention to be “technical” it has to produce a
“further technical effect”.

By zooming out and looking at the history of software patents in
Europe, we are starting to build up a picture of not just how the
EPO treats software patents, but how it has got to where it is.

Next, we’re going to see the BIG SPLIT, which breaks up
software patent claims… forever!

If you’re interested, you can read the decision here: Computer program product/IBM
T1173/97
.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.



Source link

Related posts

The Grand General Assembly On The Unification Of Judgements Of Supreme Court Decided That There Is No Need For Unification Of Judgements On Whether It Could Be Proven With Other Evidence That The Check Is Transferred With Indorsement Of Pawn In Case It Is Not Written On It – Trials & Appeals & Compensation

CATARC、自動車標準必須特許ライセンスに関するガイドラインを発表 – Patent – China

West Virginia Federal Court Determines Comparative Fault Theory Applies To Deliberate Intent Actions Under State Law – Professional Negligence