Aerotel Ltd. v Telco Holdings Ltd & Ors Rev 1

Aerotel Ltd. v Telco Holdings Ltd & Ors Rev 1

Aerotel's patent claims a new physical system and method for making telephone calls, not solely a method of doing business as such, and is not excluded under Article 52(2) EPC or section 1(2) Patents Act 1977. Macrossan's application is for a method of doing business as such and a computer program as such, with no technical contribution beyond a standard computer, and is therefore excluded from patentability.

Parties
Appellant: Aerotel Ltd; Respondent: Telco Holdings Ltd; Respondent: Telco Global Distribution Ltd; Respondent: Telco Global Ltd; Interested Party / Amicus Curiae: Comptroller General of Patents; Appellant: Neal William Macrossan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Aerotel appeal allowed; Macrossan appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Patentability, Excluded Subject Matter, Business Methods, Computer Programs, Technical Contribution, European Patent Convention, Patents Act 1977
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patentability Excluded Subject Matter Business Methods Computer Programs Technical Contribution European Patent Convention +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aerotel Ltd

Appellant

Telco Holdings Ltd

Respondent

Telco Global Distribution Ltd

Respondent

Telco Global Ltd

Respondent

Comptroller General of Patents

Interested Party / Amicus Curiae

Neal William Macrossan

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

Aerotel's patent claims a new physical system and method for making telephone calls, not solely a method of doing business as such, and is not excluded under Article 52(2) EPC or section 1(2) Patents Act 1977. Macrossan's application is for a method of doing business as such and a computer program as such, with no technical contribution beyond a standard computer, and is therefore excluded from patentability.

Court Disposition

Aerotel appeal allowed; Macrossan appeal dismissed.

Orders

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