The IPKat has received this from Edward Tomlinson, of Frohwitter. It's a decision of Peter Prescott QC, sitting as a Patents Court Deputy Judge in CFPH LLC v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2005] EWHC 1589 (Pat), 21 July 2005, a case that addresses the topical issue of patents for computer programs.

CFPH applied for two patents for networked interactive betting, the inventions consisting of software that enabled a client to receive the most up-to-date information before placing his bet. The applications were refused by the Patent Office, the examiner considering that all they did was to provide an improved transactional process. This being so, the inventions were no more than a business method and were thus excluded from patentability under s.1(2) of the Patents Act 1977 (= Article 52 of the European Patent Convention). Since those inventions provided no technical contribution (which could render an otherwise excluded invention patentable), they were excluded subject-matter "as such" and could not be patented.

CFPH appealed, arguing that the Patent Office ought to employ the reasoning that was used by the European Patent Office, which filtered out excluded subject-matter at the stage of considering inventive step, while the UK Patent Office did so when considering novelty. Peter Prescott QC dismissed the appeal since it was clear that neither of the two alleged inventions was patentable. In any event, he ruled, it didn't matter which approach was used, since each of them would lead to the same result.

In giving his ruling, Peter Prescott QC spoke eloquently of the gulf between the real world in which patents dominate markets and the legal world -- in which words are king. He said (at paragraphs 9 to 12):
"What is an 'invention' (in the sense I am now concerned with) is a topic bedevilled by verbal formulae – and by the sweeping of problems under the carpet. So, before I go any further I want to bring some of those problems out into the light of day.

But first: does it really matter? Is it merely a sterile argument about the meaning of words? To which I answer that whoever controls the meaning of 'invention' controls what can be patented and hence an important aspect of industrial policy. There can be but one justification for having a patent system, and that is that it is good for the people of the country. If the patenting of certain things does more harm than good, it matters. Patents that are wrongly granted can be very expensive to challenge and may deter small and medium enterprises.

At the risk of some inaccuracy, patents are supposed to be granted for non-obvious advances in technology. I said "at the risk of some inaccuracy". We sense that we know 'technology' when we see it. And no doubt that is correct, most of the time.

But it is not correct all of the time. Therein lies the delusion. You can prove that for yourself by trying to find a definition of 'technology' that everybody can agree on. The more you try, the more you will discover what a horribly imprecise concept it is. (Would it cover an astro-navigation chart? Naval tactics? Double-entry bookkeeping? The phonetic alphabet?) Many have tried to frame an acceptable definition, but to the best of my knowledge none have succeeded. It is like the equally vexing question, "What is Art?". The hard truth is this: concepts of that sort have no existence, and words of that sort have no meaning, except by human convention; but human beings are hopelessly in disagreement at the margin. And it is, precisely, at the margin of uncertainty that cases come up for decision".
If Peter Prescott keeps demystifying patent law, the IPKat says, will he still be allowed to sit as a judge?

What is Art? Click here and here to find out


  1. Great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you! I have a bulk leads site. It pretty much covers bulk leads related stuff.

    Come and check it out if you get time :-)

  2. You must get a lot of traffic with a blog this nice! I'll be back for sure. Hey, look at my site over here: instant messaging bomber. As you can tell, it has to do with instant messaging bomber! I trust your judgment. What do you think?

  3. Hi, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to visit again! Please feel free to visit my blog too at, RushPRnews Daily Gazette.
    My site is ** RushPRnews press release services, distribution and free web posting** . Cordially, Anne Laszlo-Howard

  4. Thanks for the information. I'm always
    on the look out for people's opinions. I
    run a website about web hosting domain registration
    so being informed is important to me.
    If you ever want to check out my site
    about web hosting domain registration feel free
    everyones welcome.

  5. Great Blog you have here! I am going to bookmark this one....

    If your looking for **free traffic**

    Check this one out :-)

  6. Nice blog with interesting topics. I have a website that offers alot of controversial topics here. Just go to the links page and look for "Video Reviews"

  7. with no damage to your business’ budget whatsoever.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.