Dynamic document generation

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Logo on the decisions of the Federal Court of Justice
Federal Court of Justice
File number Xa ZB 20/08
Paragraphs Section 1, Paragraph 3, No. 3, Paragraph 4 of the Patent
Act, Section 1, Section 1 of the Patent Act
Keywords Technicality
cited decisions BGH page buffer
BGH Chinese characters (Decision)
BGH control device for examination modalities
BGH voice analyzer
BGH glass bottles analysis system
BGH search faulty strings
BGH Electronic payment
BGH profitability determination
BGH offering interactive help
EPA T 0258/03
BGH Three seam tubular film bag
Federal Patent Court
File number 17 W (pat) 71/04
Paragraphs Section 1 (1) of the Patent Act
cited decisions BGH page buffer
BGH offering interactive help (decision)
BGH anti-lock system (decision)
BGH logic verification (decision)
BGH profitability assessment (decision)
BGH search for faulty character strings (decision)
BPatG system claims (decision)
DPMA
File number DE 102 32 674.6-53
Paragraphs Section 4 PatG

The decision on dynamic document generation of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) of April 22, 2010 (Az.Xa ZB 20/08) affirms the patentability of a sequence of a data processing program that is used to solve a problem that is or is determined by technical conditions outside the data processing system the solution is to design a data processing program in such a way that it takes the technical conditions of the data processing system into account ( guiding principle ).

facts

The German patent application DE 102 32 674 with priority date May 29, 2002 relates to a method for the dynamic generation of structured documents . The claimed method should make it possible in a client-server environment to implement Java server pages on a computer on which no Java virtual machine is installed, but an adapted runtime environment that requires less computing capacity or storage space.

The examiner of the DPMA rejected the application on May 18, 2004, due to a lack of inventive step .

The Federal Patent Court rejected the complaint with reference to the BGH decision Seitenbuffer for lack of technical character , because no technical modifications of the means used to carry out the teaching are recognizable. The BPatG explicitly referred to the far-reaching consequences of a fundamental recognition of the optimization of system-related software as a technical invention.

This recognition as a technical teaching, which is basically a patent protection as an invention, was made by the BGH with reference to the decision Seitenbuffer , although the patent law of 1968 was the basis of the patent law of 1968 (before the EPC 1973 came into force in 1977) who did not know about the exclusion of computer programs.

meaning

The first reaction to the decision was unanimous that with this decision the door for the patenting of software was opened wide. Florian Müller explained: "If you do your job as a software developer correctly, you will continuously create patentable processes". With this ruling, the BGH effectively decided in the form of an obiter dictum for software patenting, which has been highly controversial worldwide for years.

With the judgment, the BGH is in line with the boards of appeal of the European Patent Office. Their case law provides for a low threshold for the existence of technicality. However, only technical features are taken into account when examining inventive step. After the BGH has not decided on the matter, it remains to be seen whether the Federal Patent Court will reject the appeal and how the DPMA justifies the lack of inventive step.

First comments

  • Stefan Krempl : Federal Court of Justice paves the way for software patents . May 19, 2010 ( heise.de [accessed on May 19, 2010]).
  • Axel H. Horns: German Supreme Court on Patents on Computer-Implemented Inventions . May 19, 2010 ( ipjur.com [accessed May 21, 2010]).
  • Hans-Joachim Baader: Software patent approved by the Federal Court of Justice . May 19, 2010 ( pro-linux.de [accessed May 21, 2010]).
  • Robert A. Gehring: Free path for software patents . May 20, 2010 ( golem.de [accessed May 21, 2010]).
  • Stefan Krempl : BGH judgment on software patents meets with a lot of criticism . May 20, 2010 ( heise.de [accessed on May 21, 2010]).
  • Lutz Poessneck: BGH judgment could make software patents easier . May 20, 2010 ( silicon.de [accessed on May 21, 2010]).
  • Manfred Kohl: Germany is now becoming a paradise for patent trolls . May 20, 2010 ( theinquirer.de [accessed May 21, 2010]).
  • beck-aktuell-Redaktion: BGH: Process for the dynamic generation of structured documents in client-server systems can be patentable . May 25, 2010 ( beck-aktuell.beck.de [accessed on May 28, 2010]).
  • Volker Metzler: Decision Xa ZB 20/08 of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) on Software-Implemented Invention Controversially Discussed . May 30, 2010 ( visaepatentes.com [accessed June 9, 2010]).
  • Rob Harrison: Flooding Germany with Software Patents? May 23, 2010 ( tangible-ip.com [accessed June 9, 2010]).
  • Harald Talarczyk: Federal Court of Justice opens the gates for software patenting . ( blog.1und1.de ).
  • Watch out - software patents are here! ( spielerecht.de ).
  • New Federal Court of Justice ruling on software patents causes a stir . ( der-softwareentwickler-blog.de ).
  • How far can software patents go? ( compboard.de ).
  • BGH judgment could make software patents easier . ( zdnet.de ).
  • Swen Kiesewetter-Köbinger: Comments on the latest software patent decisions EPA G_3 / 08 and BGH, decision of April 22, 2010 - Dynamic document generation . In: GB - The Green Messenger . tape 3 , July 2010, p. 201–206 ( recht.uni-jena.de [PDF; accessed on July 15, 2010]).
  • Stefan Krempl : The patent system in upheaval - patents on software and business methods remain controversial . In: c't . tape September 18 , 2010 ( heise.de [accessed September 20, 2010]).
  • Fritz Teufel: News from the field of software patenting . In: Communications from German patent attorneys . No. 9 , 2010, p. 405-417 ( heymanns.com ).
  • Christopher Weber: Is Germany clearing the way for software patents? December 20, 2010 ( twobirds.com [accessed December 21, 2010]).

See also

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ G. Seshadri: Understanding JavaServer Pages Model 2 Architecture . In: Java Word . December 1999 ( javaworld.com [accessed May 19, 2010]).
  2. ↑ Thomas Hoeren : BGH: Door wide open for software patents . May 25, 2010 ( blog.beck.de [accessed on May 28, 2010]).
  3. ↑ Florian Müller : Federal Court of Justice sets no limits on software patents in Germany . May 19, 2010 ( itespresso.de [accessed on May 21, 2010]). German high court declares all software potentially patentable . May 19, 2010 ( fosspatents.blogspot.com [accessed June 9, 2010]).
  4. ↑ BGH decision Xa ZB 20/08 of April 22, 2010 in the legal complaint concerning patent application DE 102 32 674.6-53 . accessed on March 2, 2016
  5. ↑ Opinion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in relation to a point of law referred by the President of the European Patent Office pursuant to Article 112 (1) (b) EPC . May 12, 2010 ( documents.epo.org [PDF; 128 kB ]). documents.epo.org ( Memento of the original from October 7, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / documents.epo.org