Tag Archives: International

Patentable Subject Matter in Russia

Posted on by

Just a reminder to those seeking patent protection for computer-related inventions, Civil Code of the Russian Federation (as of Dec. 1, 2007), Part IV (PDF), Section IV, Article 1350(1) states that it is possible to have patent protection. Article 1350(1) states that patent protection is available for a technical solution in any area related to a product (including a device) or a method (a “process of affecting a material object using [a] material means”). However, Article 1350(5) expressly excludes the following from patentability in Russia:

  • discoveries;
  • scientific
  • theories and mathematical methods;
  • proposals concerning solely the outward appearance of manufactured articles and intended to satisfy aesthetic requirements;
  • rules and methods of games and for intellectual or business activity;
  • computer programs; and
  • ideas on presentation of information.

So, patent practitioners are advised to very carefully draft patent claims and patent applications when working with computer-related inventions when seeking patents in Russia.

Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal To Rule On Business Methods

Posted on by

On November 15, 2010, the Attorney General of Canada filed a Notice (PDF) that the AG will seek appeal of last month’s ruling by Canada’s Federal Court that Amazon’s 1-click shopping idea could be patented.

Mr. Justice Phelan of the Canadian Federal Court reasons that care must be taken to apply foreign law to Canadian law. From paragraph [33] of the opinion, Justice Phelan notes that, for policy reasons, the European statute places restrictions on allowable patent subject matter:  “[t]he following . . . shall not be regarded as inventions . . . [including] mathematical methods; aesthetic creations; schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts . . . [and] doing business, and programs for computers.” However, Canada has no such statutorily mandated exceptions, and Canada has different policies than the EU (EEUU).

Mr. Justice Phelan finds that the 1982 Shell Oil decision (Shell Oil Co. of Canada v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 536) is controlling and provides a more expansive allowance for patentable subject matter in Canada than found in Europe.

Under de novo review, the Justice finds that the claims are directed to a “machine” and an “art” which is a “practical application of the one-click concept, put into action through the use of cookies, computers, the internet and the customer’s own action.” Further, the Justice finds that there is no exclusion for “’business methods’ . . . which are otherwise patentable, nor is there a ‘technological’ test in Canadian jurisprudence.”

The Notice of Appeal indicates that the interpretation of “invention” in section 2 of the Canadian Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-4, should be viewed as only allowing “processes” that perform acts on “some physical object” or produce “in such object some change either of character or condition.”

It will be important to watch for the final disposition of this case because this One-Click patent is Canada’s Bilski case, a reference to a recent U.S. Supreme Court opinion allowing for an expansive interpretation of patentable subject matter under U.S. law. This Canadian case has been pending since Amazon filed its U.S. patent application all the way back in 1998.