Bonum Certa Men Certa

India and Europe Do Not Permit Software Patents, But Patent Law Firms Try to Work Around the Law

They want to be let in through loopholes and trap doors

To let in



Summary: LexOrbis and NLO are two of the latest examples of law firms that scheme to bypass the rules and patent software where these patents are not permitted

WHEN patent lawyers in the US are plotting to get software patents from the USPTO they aren't doing anything unethical. While software patents have virtually no 'teeth' in US courts (and are also harder to get from the examiners, especially once PTAB gets involved), there's no law or even guidelines actually banning such patents.



In other parts of the world (except China) it's another matter; LexOrbis and its advocacy [1, 2] for software patents in India was noted here before. IAM helps them a lot with this. A few days ago DPS Parmar (LexOrbis) continued pushing this agenda in India. To quote:

Once the Examiner identified that claims are drafted in the means plus function style the CRI guidelines seeks examiner to further to look for information relating to implementation of the invention in the specification and if the specification supports implementation of the invention solely by the computer program then such means plus function claims may be deemed as only computer programme per se falling within the ambit of non-patentable subject matter under section 3(k). Moreover, though act does not refer the term software, the CRI guidelines directed to keep such software within the scope of non-patentable subject under section 3(k) as seen from the last para of this guideline for "mean plus function claims" where it is stated that "Where no structural features of those means are disclosed in the specification and specification supports implementation of the invention solely by the software then in that case means in the "means plus function" claims are nothing but software."


They are using the infamous "per se" loophole whilst at the same time lobbying to expand the scope of patents to algorithms. They have not been successful.

There's also a new article titled "India in 2018" containing a section about the "artificial intelligence"/"machine learning" hype and then delving into patents as if "tons of existing and filed patents in the area by big players like Google" are innovations...

Here's the most relevant portion:

Added to the above dilemma is the huge challenge facing start-ups when more established players with much deeper pockets decide to get into the game of obtaining brands or filing patents to undercut a young brand. Every start-up founder working in the artificial intelligence/machine learning space will admit to spending more than her/his fair share of time worrying whether the next breakthrough the company will survive the challenge of proving they have something new over the tons of existing and filed patents in the area by big players like Google.

It is imperative that start-up lawyers develop a unique metric to decide when is the right time to file for relevant registrations, and how far they wish to go in trying to protect their IP. There are, indeed, no right answers here.


There are barely any cases of successful enforcement of software patents in India. So why worry? Or waste a small firm's time pursuing such patents? The matter of fact is, such patents ought to be off the agenda altogether. India has a very broad software industry and it's doing just fine without patents.

Looking at Europe, there's not much to say about the patent offices (in the news at least) except this bit of 'true' "journalism" from Reuters. It's just PR spam and it links to a PDF with text as an image (bad practice, visually unprofessional too in this case). It's about an EP. Apart from that, there's another bit of much longer PR spam. It is a shameless self-promotional piece in which NLO promotes software patents in Europe or more specifically at the EPO. There's a whole section about software patents and it's rather extraordinary that they mention "as such" twice (Brimelow's term) and also use the EPO's nonsensical term, "computer-implemented inventions," as if people will believe it's any different from software patents. To quote:

Software patents

In Europe and many other countries, mere software as such is excluded from patentability. For historical reasons, software is regarded as written source code which can only be protected by copyright.

However, many electronic products nowadays have digital functionality, and machinery is often electronically controlled. Due to increasing importance for industry, obtaining patent protection is often desirable. In Europe and around the world, it has been recognized that excluding these products or methods from protection would block innovations and be detrimental to industry.

Therefore, in many jurisdictions, it is possible to patent so-called computer-implemented inventions.

In general, a computer-implemented invention relates to a device — such as a desktop computer, a dedicated processor, or a controller — with a functionality that is implemented by a software component.

Under the present regulations, the European Patent Office (EPO) carries out a number of tests to determine whether a software-based invention merely relates to software as such or is eligible to be patented.

In addition to the regular tests for novelty and inventive step, the EPO tests whether the computer-implemented invention describes an actual implementation of a product or method, rather than just an abstract idea.

Functionality and patents

The EPO further checks whether the functionality of the software goes beyond mere automation of a known process. Obviously, software instructions have the property that a computing device that executes these instructions shows electronic activity. Mere automation of a known process which causes such electronic activity generally is not eligible to be patented.


It's rather troubling, in our view, that law firms so openly promote the practice of working around the rules and doing something which, as per the regulations, is not permitted. But we suppose that's exactly what large companies pay such law firms to achieve.

Recent Techrights' Posts

Links 16/04/2024: Levente "anthraxx" Polyák as Arch Linux 2024 Leader, openSUSE Leap Micro 6 Now Alpha, Facebook Blocking News
Links for the day
Apology & Correction: Daniele Scasciafratte & Mozilla, OSCAL, Albania dating
Reprinted with permission from the Free Software Fellowship
Richard Stallman to Give Public Talk in Portugal on Wednesday
new addition to his page
Richard Stallman's Hair Has Grown Back and He Does Not Talk About Cancer
May he live a long and happy life
[Teaser] Freenode LTD: What Happened
Upcoming series based on insiders' account with evidence
Links 15/04/2024: Signs of Desperation at Microsoft and Tesla Employees Brace for Mass Layoffs (Update: Yes, Over 10% at Tesla Laid Off)
Links for the day
 
Upcoming Themes and Articles in Techrights
we expect to have already caught up with most of the administrivia and hopefully we'll be back to the prior pace some time later this week
Where is the copyright notice and license for Debian GNU/Linux itself?
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Halász Dávid & IBM Red Hat, OSCAL, Albania dating
Reprinted with permission from the Free Software Fellowship
Next Week Marks a Year Since Red Hat Mass Layoffs, Another Round Would be "Consistent With Other Layoffs at IBM."
"From anon: Global D&I team has been cut in half."
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Monday, April 15, 2024
IRC logs for Monday, April 15, 2024
Links 15/04/2024: Navartis, AWS and Tesla Layoffs
Links for the day
Gemini Links 15/04/2024: YAML Issues and Gemtext Specification 0.24.0
Links for the day
New Video of Richard Stallman's Talk in Italy (Delivered a Week Ago)
a working copy of the video
Microsoft Windows Falling to New Lows in the United Kingdom and Worldwide
What's noteworthy here is that there's no sign at all of a Windows rebound
[Meme] Quantity of European Patents
they've rigged the system to make more money
Why do free software organizations eliminate community representatives?
Reprinted with permission from the Free Software Fellowship
Matthias Kirschner & FSFE People Trafficking, coercion of volunteers
Reprinted with permission from the Free Software Fellowship
Gemini Links 15/04/2024: Profectus Alpha 0.4 and RPG of One Capsule Progress
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Sunday, April 14, 2024
IRC logs for Sunday, April 14, 2024
Oceania: GNU/Linux Measured at Lower Than the International Average (4% or 7% Including ChromeOS)
statCounter's data
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) Does Not Wish to Become an Instrument of Cost-Free Harassment or 'Cheap Revenge', It Says "Justice is Not Free. Quite the Contrary. Justice is Expensive."
Long story short, there is no lawsuit, there is a just a hateful, lying idiot abusing "the system" (which this idiot rejects entirely)
Achieving Objectives
The 'suits' and their vocabulary can be overcome when their deceit is widely deciphered:
Mozilla Has Turned Firefox Into OSPS Consistent With "Attestation" Objectives
Open Source Proprietary Software
100 years of Hitler & psychological experiments on volunteers
Reprinted with permission from the Free Software Fellowship
Taliban, the Free and Open Source Software Community Team of Afghanistan
Reprinted with permission from the Free Software Fellowship
Links 14/04/2024: Software Needed for Work and Issues in Brazil
Links for the day
Gemini Links 14/04/2024: OFFLFIRSOCH and Gemtext Specification 0.24.0
Links for the day
Links 14/04/2024: Tesla and OpenAI (Microsoft) Layoffs Floated in the Media
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Saturday, April 13, 2024
IRC logs for Saturday, April 13, 2024