Everything about Business Method Patent totally explained
Business method patents are a class of
patents which disclose and
claim new
methods of doing business. This includes new types of
e-commerce,
insurance,
banking,
tax compliance etc. Business method patents are a relatively new species of patent and there have been several reviews investigating the appropriateness of patenting business methods. Nonetheless, they've become important assets for both independent
inventors and major
corporations.
Background
In general, any
invention is eligible for patent protection if it passes the tests of
patentability:
patentable subject matter,
novelty,
inventive step or non-obviousness, and
industrial applicability (or
utility).
A business method may be defined as "a method of operating any aspect of an economic enterprise".
Legal situation
The legal situation as to whether business methods are allowed as patentable subject matter varies from legal
jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The
World Trade Organization’s
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) doesn't specifically address business method patents.
The
United States,
Australia,
Japan and
Singapore are considered "safe havens" for business method patents. The situation in
Canada,
Korea and
Taiwan isn't clear. Patent protection for business method patents in
Israel,
China,
India,
Mexico, and most of
Europe is difficult.
Australia
There is no general prohibition on the patentability of business methods in Australia. Their patentability is determined by applying the tests used to determine the patentability of any type of invention.
In a recent decision,
Grant v Commissioner of Patents [2006] FCAFC 120, [47], the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia held that a business method will only be patentable if it has a physical aspect, being a concrete, tangible, physical, or observable effect or phenomenon. Accordingly, 'pure' business methods, being those that don't have a physical aspect, are not patentable in Australia.
However, it has been suggested that
Grant v Commissioner of Patents was wrongly decided because the court failed to properly apply the existing law as set out in the decision of the High Court of Australia in
National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1959) 102 CLR 252 and that the court shouldn't have imposed a physical aspect requirement.
Canada
Pure business methods can't be patented in Canada because of its pre-constitutional (in 1982) subordination to British Common Law. Article 1(2)(c) of the Patent Law of 1977 “It is hereby declared that the following (among other things) are not inventions for the purposes of this Act, that's to say, anything which consists of …. a scheme, rule or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business, or a program for a computer.” For example, the Canadian counterpart application of the U.S. patent at issue in the
State Street case has been abandoned.
However, a business method patent may be patented in Canada if the patent is claimed in a manner which provides that an apparatus is involved. See Mark B Eisen, Arts and Crafts: The Patentability of Business Methods in Canada (2001), 17 C.I.P. Rev. 279.
European Patent Convention
Under the
European Patent Convention, "
Schemes, rules and methods for (...) doing business" are not regarded as being inventions and are not
patentable, "
to the extent that a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such".
But if a new method solves a
technical, rather than a purely
administrative, problem then it may indeed be patentable. (For example, an improved design of letter-franking machine).
Japan
In Japan, business methods are well recognized and accepted as patentable subject matter. The legal standard used to assess whether a business method is patentable requires that inventions be "a highly advanced creation of technical ideas by which a law of nature is utilized."
Patents are not issued solely for business methods. The business method must contain a technical aspect that's both tangible and real.
However this requirement
may be satisfied simply by specifying that the method is implemented using a computer.
United States
There is no exclusion for methods of doing business under US patent law. Patent applications for methods of doing business are examined using the same standards as any other invention.
History
Patents have been granted in the United States on methods for doing business since the US patent system was established in
1790. The first financial patent was granted on March 19, 1799, to Jacob Perkins of Massachusetts for an invention for "Detecting Counterfeit Notes." All details of Mr. Perkins invention, which presumably was a device or process in the printing art, were lost in the great
Patent Office fire of 1836. Its existence is only known from other sources.
The first financial patent for which any detailed written description survives was to a printing method entitled "A Mode of Preventing Counterfeiting" granted to John Kneass on April 28, 1815. The first fifty years of the U.S. Patent Office saw the granting of forty-one financial patents in the arts of bank notes (2 patents), bills of credit (1), bills of exchange (1), check blanks (4); detecting and preventing counterfeiting (10), coin counting (1), interest calculation tables (5), and lotteries (17).
On the other hand, cases such as
Hotel Security Checking Co. v. Lorraine Co., 160 F. 467 (2d Cir. 1908), which held that a bookkeeping system to prevent embezzlement by waiters was unpatentable, were often read to imply a "business method exception", in which business methods are unpatentable.
For many years, the USPTO took the position that "methods of doing business" were not patentable. With the emergence in the 1980 and 1990's of patent applications on internet or computer enabled methods of doing commerce, however, USPTO found that it was no longer practical to determine if a particular computer implemented invention was a technological invention or a business invention. Consequently they took the position that examiners wouldn't have to determine if a claimed invention was a method of doing business or not. They would determine patentability based on the same statutory requirements as any other invention.
The subsequent allowance of patents on computer implemented methods for doing business was challenged in the 1998
State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., (47
USPQ 2d 1596 (
CAFC 1998)). The court affirmed the position of the USPTO and rejected the theory that a "method of doing business" was excluded subject matter. The court further confirmed this principle with
AT&T Corporation v. Excel Communications, Inc., (50 USPQ 2d 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
The USPTO continued to require, however, that business method inventions must apply, involve, use or advance the "technological arts" in order to be patentable. This was based on an unpublished decision of the U.S.
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences,
Ex Parte Bowman, 61 USPQ2d 1665, 1671 (Bd Pat. App. & Inter. 2001). This requirement could be met by merely requiring that the invention be carried out on a
computer.
In October 2005 the USPTO's own administrative judges overturned this position in a majority decision of the board in
Ex Parte Lundgren, Appeal No. 2003-2088 (BPAI 2005). The board ruled that the "technological arts" requirement couldn't be sustained, as no such requirement existed in law.
In light of Ex Parte Lundgren, the USPTO has issued interim guidelines for patent examiners to determine if a given claimed invention meets the statutory requirements of being a process, manufacture, composition of matter or machine (35 USC 101). These guidelines assert that a process, including a process for doing business, must produce a concrete, useful and tangible result in order to be patentable. It doesn't matter if the process is within the traditional technological arts or not. A price for a financial product, for example, is considered to be a concrete useful and tangible result (see
State Street Bank decision).
The USPTO has reasserted its position that literary works, compositions of music, compilations of data, legal documents (such as
insurance policies), and forms of energy (such as data packets transmitted over the Internet), are not considered "manufactures" and hence, by themselves, are not patentable. Nonetheless, the USPTO has requested comments from the public on this position.
In 2006, Justice
Kennedy of the
US Supreme Court cast aspersions on business method patents when he commented that some of them were of "potential vagueness and suspect validity". This was expressed in a
concurring opinion to the case of
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. There has been considerable speculation as to how this opinion might affect future business method patent litigation, particularly where a patent owner seeks an injunction to stop an infringer.
In November of 2007, the United States
Internal Revenue Service proposed rules that would require tax files who paid a license fee for a
tax patent to declare that to the IRS.
Classification
Methods of doing business that involve the use of a computer are classified in Class 705 ("data processing: financial, business practice, management or cost/price determination"). Class 705 includes sub-categories for industries such as health care,
insurance, electronic shopping, inventory management, accounting, and finance.
Delays in examination
The
USPTO is experiencing significant delays in examining business method patents. Projected delays of up to 14 years have been reported. The delays are due to a combination of the in business method filings as of the State Street Bank decision and the difficulty in hiring qualified examiners with financial services backgrounds (for example insurance and banking). It has also been reported, however, that inventors can get their patent applications examined in as little as six months, if they submit a
Petition to make special. A petition to make special is a procedure for getting particular patents examined early.
Classification
In the 8th edition of the
International Patent Classification (IPC), which entered into force on
January 1,
2006, a special subclass has been created for business methods: "G06Q". In the previous editions, business methods were classified in "G06F17/60". This is purely a classification matter and won't change the patent laws however.
Further Information
Get more info on 'Business Method Patent'.
|
External Link Exchanges
Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:
<a href="http://business_method_patent.totallyexplained.com">Business method patent Totally Explained</a>
Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned. |
