Comments on: UK Grants Rare Computer Program Patent

By: Peter Hartigan

Peter Hartigan — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:24:02 +0000

The Court of Appeal seems to have backed away from the seemingly clearcut 4 stage approach which it laid down in the Macrossan/Aerotal case. This is perhaps not surprising given some of the trenchant criticism of that case – see for example at http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/positive_categories_or_exclusions.php“ title=”http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/positive_categories_or_exclusions.php“ target=”_blank” ref=”nofollow”>http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/positive_categories_… and at http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/legally_irrelevant_considerations.php.“ title=”http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/legally_irrelevant_considerations.php.“ target=”_blank” ref=”nofollow”>http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/legally_irrelevant_c…

By: Peter Hartigan

Peter Hartigan — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:24:02 +0000

In the Symbian case, the Court of Appeal seems to have backed away somewhat from the 4 stage test it laid down in the earlier Macrossan/Aerotel case. At para. 16 of the Symbian case the Court said “Tribunals not infrequently suggest a specific staged approach to resolve issues in patent cases â… While such staged approaches are often valuable, they should not necessarily be followed blindly in every case. “. The Aerotel/Macrossan decision was subjected to some trenchant criticism at the time â– see for example at http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/legally_irrelevant_considerations.php“ title=”http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/legally_irrelevant_considerations.php“ target=”_blank” ref=”nofollow”>http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/legally_irrelevant_c… and http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/positive_categories_or_exclusions.php.“ title=”http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/positive_categories_or_exclusions.php.“ target=”_blank” ref=”nofollow”>http://www.ukcorporator.co.uk/positive_categories_…