Symbian Ltd v Comptroller General Of Patents [2008] EWHC 518 (Pat) (18 March 2008)

The invention, by reorganising the DLL and providing an interface that improves the reliability of the computer's operation in the face of updates, solves a technical problem within the computer and thus provides a relevant technical contribution. It is not excluded from patentability as a computer program as such.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2008] EWHC 518 (Pat)
Parties: Appellant: Symbian Limited; Respondent: Comptroller General of Patents
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 18 March 2008
Procedural Posture: Patent Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Comptroller General of Patents
Outcome: Appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Patentability of Computer Programs, Technical Contribution Test, Excluded Subject Matter Under Patents Act 1977, Interpretation of EPC Article 52

Intellectual Property Law Patent Law Patentability of Computer Programs Technical Contribution Test Excluded Subject Matter Under Patents Act 1977 Interpretation of EPC Article 52

Source-derived case record

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 18 Party arguments 2

Parties

Symbian Limited

Appellant

Comptroller General of Patents

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Patent Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Comptroller General of Patents

Legal Issues

1 Whether the claimed invention is excluded from patentability as a computer program under s.1(2) Patents Act 1977 and Article 52 EPC
2 Whether the invention provides a relevant technical contribution beyond a computer program as such

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

The decision of the Comptroller-General of Patents is set aside
The application is not excluded from patentability under s.1(2) Patents Act 1977

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.