Aerotel Ltd. v Telco Holdings Ltd & Ors Rev 1 [2006] EWCA Civ 1371 (27 October 2006)

Aerotel Ltd. v Telco Holdings Ltd & Ors Rev 1 [2006] EWCA Civ 1371 (27 October 2006)

Aerotel's patent claims a new physical system and method involving technical means, not solely a method of doing business, and is not excluded from patentability under Art. 52(2) EPC. Macrossan's application is for a method of doing business and a computer program as such, with no technical contribution beyond a standard computer, and is excluded from patentability under Art. 52(2) EPC.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1371
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Aerotel Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Telco Holdings Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Telco Global Distribution Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Telco Global Ltd; Intervener/amicus Curiae: Comptroller General of Patents; Applicant/appellant: Neal William Macrossan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From High Court (patents Court and Chancery Division)
Outcome
Aerotel appeal allowed; Macrossan appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Patentability, Excluded Subject Matter, Business Methods, Computer Programs, European Patent Convention, Patents Act 1977
Intellectual Property Patents Patentability Excluded Subject Matter Business Methods Computer Programs European Patent Convention Patents Act 1977

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aerotel Ltd

Claimant/appellant

Telco Holdings Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Telco Global Distribution Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Telco Global Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Comptroller General of Patents

Intervener/amicus Curiae

Neal William Macrossan

Applicant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From High Court (patents Court and Chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Aerotel's patent is excluded from patentability as a method for doing business under Art. 52(2) EPC and s.1(2) Patents Act 1977; Whether Macrossan's patent application is excluded as a method for doing business and/or a computer program as such under Art. 52(2) EPC and s.1(2) Patents Act 1977; What is the correct legal test for determining excluded subject matter under Art. 52(2) and (3) EPC.

Ratio Decidendi

Aerotel's patent claims a new physical system and method involving technical means, not solely a method of doing business, and is not excluded from patentability under Art. 52(2) EPC. Macrossan's application is for a method of doing business and a computer program as such, with no technical contribution beyond a standard computer, and is excluded from patentability under Art. 52(2) EPC.

Court Disposition

Aerotel appeal allowed; Macrossan appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Revocation of Aerotel's patent set aside; patent restored.
  • Macrossan's patent application remains refused.