Eric Waltmire's Blog

Software Patent News for January 24th:

• UK IPO sticks to four-step software patent test [ITProPortal.com] –
  "The [UK] Intellectual Property Office has previously recognised that an invention which either solves a technical problem external to the computer or solves "a technical problem within the computer" is not excluded," it said. "What Symbian has now shown is that improving the operation of a computer by solving a problem arising from the way the computer was programmed – for example, a tendency to crash due to conflicting library program calls – can also be regarded as solving "a technical problem within the computer" if it leads to a more reliable computer."
• Canada, Intellectual Property, Bilski Applied: The Start Of The Ripple Effect [mondaq.com] –
  ". . .the law in Canada has always been more restrictive in this field [software patents] than in the United States. Since the 1981 decision of Schlumberger Canada Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents [(1981) 56 C.P.R. (2d) 204 (FCA)], software-related inventions have been patentable [in Canada] if the new software was coupled with computer hardware, even if the hardware component is nominal."
• April deadline set for submissions in EPO Software Patent Case [Managing Intellectual Property] –
  Interested parties have until the end of April to submit written statements to the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal for the president’s referral on the patentability of computer programs. Given the controversy over the patenting of computer programs in recent years, a large number of submissions can be expected, from the software industry, legal professionals, trade associations and the open-source and anti-software patent communities.
• Battle Between Software Patents and Open Source [IPWatchdog.com] –
  Pat Quinn on Software Patents "I am just a patent attorney who thinks software ought to be patentable and that the Federal Circuit went way farther than it should have in Bilski. But I can’t help but notice that by making open source software a priority President Obama is potentially showing his hand and throwing in with those who would rather not see a strong and vibrant patent system. . .
  . . . I trace back the fall of proprietary software and the beginning of the end of software patents to the day the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Microsoft-AT&T case. One curious aspect of the Microsoft-AT&T decision was the choice by the majority to characterize software that is not in a format capable of being immediately loaded onto a computer as “an idea without physical embodiment.” "

Software Patent News for January 19th:

• Patent suit on method of using Icons that look like the content of the files they represent [Patently-O] –
  In 1998 three central-Indiana inventors filed for patent protection iconic software. The claims – finally issued in 2008 – cover a method of using icons that look like the content of the files they represent. The first named inventor – Greg Swartz – moved to Arizona and has recently filed an infringement complaint in that state. Defendants include Google (Chrome Browser), Microsoft (Vista), and Apple (iPhone). (U.S. Patent No. 7,346,850; ArsTechnica).
• IBM garners most patents — again [InfoWorld]–
  2008 is the 16th straight year that Big Blue led the race, pulling in 4,186 patents throughout 2008. Samsung ranked second with 3,515 patents, Canon third at 2,114, while Microsoft was fourth with 2,030, and Intel took the fifth spot with 1,776. Hewlett-Packard, meanwhile, came in at number 10 with 1,424.
• IBM tops patent leadership in 2008 too [Business Standard] –
  IBM plans to increase by 50 per cent, to more than 3,000, the number of technical inventions it publishes annually instead of seeking patent protection”. He, however, highlighted IBM’s pledge not to assert certain software patents against the open source community; and not to assert any patent against 150 software interoperability standards.
• Liveblog: TACD IP: Patent Reform [Gavin Baker] –
  Live Blog of Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) Workship on Patents, Copyrights and Knowledge Governance: The Next Four Years (Workshophttp://www.tacd-ip.org/blog/?page_id=5); Panel 5 – Patent Reform
• Wegner’s Top Ten Patent Cases in 2009 [Patent Baristas] –
  Including: “4) Bilski v. Doll:. . . since the claims in Bilski were not tied to particular hardware, the court did not consider the viability of patenting specific functions carried out by a computer. Now, how the phrase “tied to a particular machine” will be applied to software patents.”
• ABA on the USPTO to president-elect Obama [IAM] –
  The IP section of the Amercan Bar Association suggests a number of reforms which it believes will enhance the USPTO’s operation.

Software Patent Bits for October 13th through October 31st:

• In re Bilski Decision Analysis [Patently-O] – Patentable Process Must Either (1) be Tied to a particular machine or (2) Transform a Particular Article
• Paul Cole on Patentability of Computer Software in UK [Patently-O] – In Symbian Limited v. Comptroller General of Patents [2008] EWCA Civ 1066, the UK Court of Appeal recently took a broader approach to patentability of software. UK patent attorney and author Paul Cole has written a short article for the Patently-O Patent Law Journal discussing the case and its impact.

Software Patent Bits for September 23rd through October 10th:

• Facebook Dismissed from Search Patent Suit [The Prior Art] — – Facebook was dismissed from a lawsuit based on U.S. Patent No. 6,199,067, which claims the use of user profiles in Internet search. PA Advisors asserted the patent in a suit against Google, Yahoo, Facebook, and several other smaller players in November 2007. Facebook spokesman said that no payment was made in exchange for the dismissal.
• Intellectual Property Rights and Software Protection – A Programmer’s View [eNewsMediaMagazine] — – This article is provided by Leigh Ellis, a UK based software solicitor and qualified software engineer who providing legal advice to technology businesses in the UK and worldwide. Liegh provides that the foundations for software protection lay directly and indirectly by contract, copyright, designs law, patent law, trade marks, passing off, law of confidence and trade secrets.

• Intellectual Property Rights and Software Protection – A UK Programmer’s View [eNewsMediaMagazine] —

  This article is provided by Leigh Ellis, a UK based software solicitor and qualified software engineer who providing legal advice to technology businesses in the UK and worldwide. Liegh provides that the foundations for software protection lay directly and indirectly by contract, copyright, designs law, patent law, trade marks, passing off, law of confidence and trade secrets.

  (tags: software patent)