Legal Trends (Part I): Patenting the Internet

Virtually every window of time can be identified by its technological advances. The industrial revolution of the 1800's gave way to the transportation revolution of the early 20th century. The development of synthetics such as nylon and plastics were followed by an electronics revolution built on transistors and early computers. The silicon chip lead to personal computers and chip-driven devices as the 20th century wound down. But these technological changes pale to that which the Internet has brought to the information industry. After 500 years of building on print technologies, the Internet has restructured this industry in a way that is unmatched by other fields of endeavor. The transformation brought on by the Internet, occurring over a fraction of the industry’s life-cycle, has been nothing short of–to use the cliche–revolutionary. All of these technological transformations operate within a number of legal structures. One of the most critical of these structures, yet often least understood, is patent law. In this article, the author explores and explains the complexities involved in determining patentability for Internet-related technologies, such as e-mail, web browsing, TCP/IP software and e-commerce, and in particular, federated searching by WebFeat

The Global Artificial Intelligence Revolution Challenges Patent Eligibility Laws

This Article examines patent eligibility jurisprudence of artificial intelligence in the United States, Europe, France, Japan, and Singapore. It identifies de facto requirements of patent-eligible artificial intelligence. It also examines the adaptability of patent eligibility jurisprudence to adapt with the growth of artificial intelligence

Developing the Curriculum for Collaborative Intellectual Property Education

Intellectual property education, i.e. how intellectual property should be taught or more importantly how intellectual property is learnt, is a recent addition to the academic 'intellectual property' agenda. The regulation, acquisition and management of intellectual property rights presents economic, ethical, social and policy challenges across the international academic and business communities. Intellectual property is also the starting point of interesting academic cross-disciplinary collaborations in learning and teaching and in research. It will probably always be primarily a law subject taught by lawyers to law students hoping to practice. At the same time there is a growing array of disciplines demanding an awareness of and a competence in handling intellectual property concepts and regulations. At Bournemouth, we have been teaching IP across the disciplines for more than a decade. Recently, the Higher Education Academy subject centres in Law and in Engineering jointly funded a project to research 'IP for Engineers'. WIPO has begun addressing IP Education in earnest. At an international symposium in July 2005, papers addressed different aspects of IP Education, including Collaboration between Law Faculties and other disciplines. In November 2005, they jointly sponsored a National Conference in China to consider IP Education from primary school thru postgraduate research. IP education beyond the law school raises interesting questions for anyone contemplating teaching this complex law subject to non-lawyers. What constitutes the IP syllabus? Who should be teaching IP? When should it be taught? How should it be taught? What resources should be available? This paper begins to explore some of the answers

Carbons Into Bytes: Patented Chemical Compound Protection in the Virtual World

“Virtual” molecular compounds, created in molecular modeling software, are increasingly useful in the process of rational drug design. When a physical compound is patented, however, virtual use of the compound allows researchers to circumvent the protection granted to the patentee. To acquire protection from unauthorized use of compounds in their virtual form, patentees must directly claim the virtual compound. But Supreme Court decisions such as Bilski v. Kappos and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. call into question whether virtual compound claims are patentable subject matter under § 101. Using the guidance offered by the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit, this Issue Brief argues that virtual compound claims are not abstract ideas and therefore, consistent with patent policy, qualify as patentable subject matter

Physicality in Australian patent law

It is generally understood that the patent system exists to encourage the conception and disclosure of new and useful inventions embodied in machines and other physical devices, along with new methods that physically transform matter from one state to another. What is not well understood is whether, and to what extent, the patent system is to encourage and protect the conception and disclosure of inventions that are non-physical methods – namely those that do not result in a physical transformation of matter. This issue was considered in Grant v Commissioner of Patents. In that case the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia held that an invention must involve a physical effect or transformation to be patentable subject matter. In doing so, it introduced a physicality requirement into Australian law. What this article seeks to establish is whether the court’s decision is consistent with the case law on point. It does so by examining the key common law cases that followed the High Court’s watershed decision in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents, the undisputed authoritative statement of principle in regard to the patentable subject matter standard in Australia. This is done with a view to determining whether there is anything in those cases that supports the view that the Australian patentable subject matter test contains a physicality requirement