BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> eSpeed Inc (Patent) [2004] UKIntelP o27704 (15 September 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o27704.html
Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o27704

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


eSpeed Inc [2004] UKIntelP o27704 (15 September 2004)

For the whole decision click here: o27704

Patent decision

BL number
O/277/04
Concerning rights in
GB0217629.5
Hearing Officer
Mr D J Barford
Decision date
15 September 2004
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
eSpeed Inc
Provisions discussed
PA 1977 sections 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b),1(2)(c)
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused)
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The application relates to a computer based system which provides matches of offers to sell with offers to buy. For instance a time-share period put on offer by a seller may be matched (or nearly matched) by a number of buyers who between them cover the period on offer.

It was common ground that the principles laid down by the Court of Appeal in Fujitsu Limiteds Application apply. The applicant argued that there was a technical contribution in providing a solution to the problem of enabling a known, but impracticable, business method to be put into effect.

Held that since the business method and the apparatus involved were both known, any technical contribution would have to be provided by the software. Held however that a computer running the software neither produces technical change in an external apparatus (screens displaying matches were not regarded as such) nor causes the computer itself to operate in a technically different way (production of a display simultaneously on a number of screens was not regarded as such).

In consequence the application was held to be excluded from patentability as a program for a computer as such.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o27704.html