http://www.lawfont.com/2005/10/15/patents-business-methods-and-the-requirement-that-the-claimed-invention-relate-to-a-field-of-technology/ an analysis of law, technology, economics, and policy Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:59:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.lawfont.com/2005/10/15/patents-business-methods-and-the-requirement-that-the-claimed-invention-relate-to-a-field-of-technology/comment-page-1/#comment-76 LawFont » Upcoming Attractions in Australian IP…some developments to expect in 2006 Sat, 07 Jan 2006 04:48:37 +0000 http://www.lawfont.com/?p=73#comment-76 [...] The second is the continuing debate over business method patents. The scope of what is patentable in this context is a matter of live debate here in Australia at the moment; a debate only likely to be enlivened when the issue hits the Full Federal Court this February. The case of Grant v Commissioner of Patents is listed for hearing before Heerey, Kiefel and Bennett JJ on 28 February 2006. Readers might recall I’ve discussed this case before in some detail - see here and here. Warwick Rothnie also has a discussion here. Some practitioners have criticised IP Australia’s, and the Court’s approach as being ’short-sighted’ - see for example the passage from Clark quoted in this post. [...] [...] The second is the continuing debate over business method patents. The scope of what is patentable in this context is a matter of live debate here in Australia at the moment; a debate only likely to be enlivened when the issue hits the Full Federal Court this February. The case of Grant v Commissioner of Patents is listed for hearing before Heerey, Kiefel and Bennett JJ on 28 February 2006. Readers might recall I’ve discussed this case before in some detail – see here and here. Warwick Rothnie also has a discussion here. Some practitioners have criticised IP Australia’s, and the Court’s approach as being ’short-sighted’ – see for example the passage from Clark quoted in this post. [...]

]]> http://www.lawfont.com/2005/10/15/patents-business-methods-and-the-requirement-that-the-claimed-invention-relate-to-a-field-of-technology/comment-page-1/#comment-48 LawFont » Cert granted in LabCorp v. Metabolite Mon, 31 Oct 2005 23:20:24 +0000 http://www.lawfont.com/?p=73#comment-48 [...] On Monday, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari (equivalent to the Australian High Court granting special leave) in a patent case, LabCorp v. Metabolite. The case is about patentability of medical processes, and has the potential, according to the Patently-O Blog, of addressing some of the ‘patentability of processes’ issues raised in the Ex p Lundgren case that I’ve commented on before (here and here). [...] [...] On Monday, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari (equivalent to the Australian High Court granting special leave) in a patent case, LabCorp v. Metabolite. The case is about patentability of medical processes, and has the potential, according to the Patently-O Blog, of addressing some of the ‘patentability of processes’ issues raised in the Ex p Lundgren case that I’ve commented on before (here and here). [...]

]]> http://www.lawfont.com/2005/10/15/patents-business-methods-and-the-requirement-that-the-claimed-invention-relate-to-a-field-of-technology/comment-page-1/#comment-46 LawFont » Business Method Patents in the US - more developments Fri, 28 Oct 2005 02:38:39 +0000 http://www.lawfont.com/?p=73#comment-46 [...] A little while ago I blogged about Ex parte Carl A. Lundgren, a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the US Patent and Trade Mark Office (USPTO). In that decision, the Board overturned the Examiner’s objection to the patent, holding there is no separate “technological arts” test in determining whether a process is statutory subject matter. The decision potentially broadened the patentability of what you might call ‘pure business methods’ - those not instantiated in ‘technology’ (like software or hardware). [...] [...] A little while ago I blogged about Ex parte Carl A. Lundgren, a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the US Patent and Trade Mark Office (USPTO). In that decision, the Board overturned the Examiner’s objection to the patent, holding there is no separate “technological arts” test in determining whether a process is statutory subject matter. The decision potentially broadened the patentability of what you might call ‘pure business methods’ – those not instantiated in ‘technology’ (like software or hardware). [...]

]]>