Software patents in Israel

January 12, 2012

The long awaited guidelines regarding the patentability of software inventions in Israel have finally been published by the Israel Patent Authority.

In brief, it appears that the term ‘industrial application’ as required by section 3 of the Israel Patent Law 1967 may be fulfilled by patents in any field of technology.

  1. Software inventions having a real world effect are considered technological and thus patentable. To establish whether a  software implemented invention is technological it has to be considered in its entirety. I think this means that the Commissioner of Patents requires examiners to take a holistic approach to the question.
  2. Business methods are not considered industrial, nor are algorithms.
  3. A real world effect may be indicated by something that may be perceived by the senses.
  4. Software that creates new links and causes a computer to work better or faster may be considered a real world effect.
  5. Software per se, abstract thought processes and algorithms not having a real world effect are not patentable, but may be protected as a literary creation under copyright law.
  6. Beauregard claims are allowable.
  7. A software invention that enables automation that is more than simply doing something automatically that could previously be achieved manually, may be patentable.  I think this means that software inventions that enable a result to be obtained that could not hitherto realistically be obtained, could be patentable.

Helpfully, the relevant guidelines for the Examiner are appended to the circular, together with a number of specific examples from real patent applications, a verdict regarding whether the claimed invention is patentable subject matter and a brief explanation.

For reference purposes, I am reproducing the examples below:

GB 2391348

A data processing apparatus, comprising:
a processor;
a compiler for compiling application code to generate instructions for execution by the processor;
a non-invasive trace unit coupled to the processor for generating, from input signals received from the processor, trace signals indicative of the instructions being executed by the processor;
the compiler being arranged to control the compilation of the application code dependent on the trace signals.

This is considered patentable.

GB 2407655

A method of operating a computing device having an operating system and a dynamic link library containing a plurality of functions accessible by an executable program, each function in the dynamic link library being associated with an ordinal number, the method comprising:
Providing the dynamic link library as a first part and an extension part each containing one or more of the plurality of functions;
Causing the executable program to link to functions in the first part directly by means of the associated ordinal numbers;
and 
Causing the executable program to link to functions in the extension part indirectly via a further library containing additional functions.

This is also considered patentable.

WO2007002296

A method for automatically calculating a discount for a customer offered by a merchant through a reservation system, comprising:
accessing at least one reservation file relating to a reservation;
accessing transaction data relating to at least one payment card transaction;
comparing one or more elements of the transaction data against one or more elements of the reservation file to determine a match;
and electronically calculating the discount based on[e or more] one or more elements of the transaction data and one or more elements of the reservation file.

This is considered non-patentable as although computer implemented, the real world effect is a business method which is not considered as having a technological effect.

EP 1301912

A method of operating a transaction processing system enabling users to authorize transactions, said system comprising a central transaction processing system (19) having at least a first data communications interface and a second data communications interface, comprising the following steps carried out by said central transaction processing system (19):
receiving transaction data from an offering party, relating to a specific transaction to be authorized by a user, and receiving a first transaction reference (TRN) relating to and uniquely identifying said specific transaction, via a first data communication path (16), at said first data communications interface;
generating a second transaction reference (TRR) which is different to the first transaction reference (TRN) and which uniquely identifies the transaction within the central transaction processing system (19);
sending said second transaction reference (TRR) to the offering party; after receiving said transaction data, conducting communications over a second data communication path (22), different to said first data communication path, with said user over said second data communications interface;
using said second path, conducting a secure access procedure in which authentication data is received and said authentication data is verified;
using said second path, receiving said first transaction reference (TRN) relating to and uniquely identifying said specific transaction from said user, said transaction reference not being previously transmitted to said user in said second communication path (22);
using said second path, receiving confirmation from said user; and
in response to said confirmation, transmitting an authorization signal to authorize said transaction, said authorization signal including said second transaction reference (TRR), wherein said second transaction reference (TRR) is not known to said user.

Despite being applied to business applications, there is a technological effect of improved data security so the claimed invention is patentable.

GB 2171877

A method of making a telephone call from any available telephone, comprising: obtaining a special code by making a prepayment;
inserting the prepayment in a memory in a special exchange and being allocated to the special code in the memory for use in verifying a calling party call;
dialing the special exchange when a telephone call connection is desired;
inputting the special code for verification; inputting the number of called party;
verifying at the special exchange by checking the special code and comparing the prepayment less any deductions for previous calls in the memory with the minimum cost of a call to the called party station;
connecting the called and calling parties’ stations in response to said verification; monitoring the remaining prepayment less deductions for the running cost of the call;
and disconnecting the call when the remaining prepayment has been spent by the running cost of the call.

Despite being a business method, by virtue of the ‘special exchange’, there is a redeeming device and the invention is patentable.

GB 2418281

A method of creating a document having a displayable area on which information is placed, the method comprising:
a. providing a plurality of content-items which contain information that it is possible to display on the displayable area;
b. dividing the displayable area into a set of subareas each capable of receiving one or more of the content-items;
c. generating at least one set of proposed arrangements in which the content items have been arranged within the set of sub-areas;
d. selecting at least one of the proposed arrangements, according to predetermine criteria, as the layout of the content-items within the sub-areas of the displayable area to create the document; and
e. causing a printing means to print the created document.

This is considered simply automation of manual type-setting and is not considered as patentable.


US 2007033615

A method for transferring programs to a secondary storage device using an interactive television program guide implemented on user television equipment, to cause a first display: in a display screen of at least one program listing related to at least one program;
using the interactive television program guide to enable a user to select a program listing from at least one displayed program listing;
using the interactive television program guide to cause the program related to the selected program listing to be recorded on a digital storage device;
using the interactive television program guide to cause a second display in the display screen that includes at least one recorded program listing for at least one program recorded on the digital storage device, wherein at least one recorded program listing includes a recorded program listing for the program recorded on the digital storage device;
using the interactive television program guide to enable the user to select the recorded program listing to transfer the recorded program from the digital storage device to a secondary storage device; and
using the interactive television program guide to transfer the recorded program from the digital storage device to the secondary storage device.

This is considered as having a real world effect and is therefore patentable.

 

EP 1062615

A method of monitoring, diagnosing and treating medical conditions of a plurality of remotely located patients using a central data processing system configured to communicate with and receive data from a plurality of respective patient monitoring systems, wherein each patient monitoring system is capable of receiving and storing patient data, the method comprising the steps of:
obtaining patient data from a plurality of patient monitoring systems at the central data processing system;
analyzing the obtained patient data from each respective patient monitoring system at the central data processing system to identify medical conditions of each respective patient;
displaying identified patient medical conditions for each respective patient in selectable, prioritized order according to medical severity; and
in response to selecting an identified medical condition for a respective patient, displaying treatment options for treating the medical condition.

This is considered as having a real world effect. Presumably the diagnosis – since methods of treatment are not statutory subject matter under Section 7(i).

WO 2010128511

A method for determining a matching score between a first set of H1 feature points, and a second set of n2 feature points, the method comprising the procedures of: producing a triple-wise affinity tensor, including the affinity score of assignments of triplets of feature points of said first set of feature points and triplets of feature points of said second set of feature points; determining a leading eigenvector of said triple-wise affinity tensor; iteratively producing a binary optimal assignment vector by discretization of said leading eigenvector; and determining a matching score between said first set of feature points and said second set of feature points according to said triple-wise affinity tensor and according to said optimal assignment vector.

As claimed, not patentable, since the invention relates to a mathematical abstraction. If image analysis and comparison using the method had been claimed, the result would have been different.

WO 2006082590

A method for adaptive filtering of at least one pixel having an initial value of an image composed of pixels, the method comprising: calculating local expected value for the pixel; calculating local signal to noise ratio; calculating local filtration ratio based at least on said local signal to noise ratio; calculating a weighted average of the initial value and local expected value using said local filtration ratio as weight; and assigning the weighted average as a new value for the pixel.

Since this is applied to at least one pixel, this is not an abstract algorithm, but rather an applied algorithm for image processing and is patentable. Furthermore, this cannot be simply considered as automation of something formerly done by hand since manually processing in this manner would not have been practicable.

 

WO 01/37131

A method of classifying an image, comprising the steps of segmenting the image into a plurality of regions and, for each of at least one of the regions: quantifying each of a plurality of visual properties of the region on a numeric scale for the property; comparing each quantified property with a plurality of bands of the numeric scale for the property, each band being associated with a computer-readable character; and arranging in a predetermined order the characters associated with the bands in which the quantified properties fall to form a region character string.

Can not be done manually and classification is considered a real world effect. Patentable.

 

WO 2005005004 

A method comprising the following steps to be performed electronically: selecting at least two participants from a plurality of participants; presenting a first image to each selected participant; and requesting each said selected participant to provide a description of said first image.

Although implemented by a computer, this is a manual process and is therefore not industrially applicable.

 

EP1184798

1.    A method of processing and presenting data, comprising the steps of:
(1) identifying claim dependencies of claims in a user-selected patent;
(2) constructing a patent claims hyperbolic tree for said user-selected patent using said identified claim dependencies; and
(3) displaying said patent claims hyperbolic tree. 

4.    A method of processing and presenting data, comprising the steps of:
(1) retrieving patent citation information pertaining to a user-selected patent, wherein said patent citation information is backward patent citation information or forward patent citation information;
(2) constructing a patent citation hyperbolic tree using said retrieved patent citation information; and
(3) emphasizing nodes of said patent citation hyperbolic tree according to time-based criteria, wherein said time-based criteria includes at least one of filing date, priority date, length of pendency, effective filing date, invention date, critical date, on-sale date, public disclosure date, and public use date.

Although computerized, could be performed manually by a data searcher, therefore not patentable. However, if linked to specific electronic processes, might be considered patentable.

EP 1618498

A method for managing a treelike data structure for text-to-phoneme mapping for automatic speech recognition or text-to-speech, which method comprises steps for creating a decision tree comprising a parent node and at least one leaf node, said method comprising also steps for searching data from said nodes, characterized in that the decision tree is created by storing the nodes sequentially in such a manner that nodes follow the parent node in storage order, wherein the nodes refining the context of the searchable data can be reached without a link from their parent node.

Unlike the previous example, by virtue of the highlighted section, the claimed software implemented invention is linked to specific hardware and is thus patentable.

COMMENTS

In general, I think the Commissioner has got this right.

It is a shame that the guidelines issued a year after they were promised.


Software Patents in Israel – Guidelines on Hold

February 7, 2011

The last act before leaving office of the previous commissioner, Dr Meir Noam, was to announce that there was a new policy regarding the patentability of software inventions and that guidelines would be forthcoming by the end of January. 

See Patentability of Software – Notice from the Israel Patent Office for more details.

 In a not totally unexpected move. Dr Guy Rotkopf has announced that the guidelines are delayed.

It is not clear when the guidelines will issue, but we will endeavor to report developments whilst they happen!


Patentability of Software – Notice from the Israel Patent Office

December 30, 2010

The Israel Patent Office has published an announcement regarding the patentability of software in Israel. The announcement follows a round table discussion held in November 2009, and a call for amicus briefs from the public.

The announcement relates to the spectrum of positions submitted, consulting with jurists and examiners, and looking at the Law in the US, Europe and the UK.

The following is a translation of the Notice:

  1. An invention as defined in the claims must be in an area of technology. This is implicit in Section 3 of the Israel Law.
  2. The invention will be examined in its entirety without separating between software and hardware elements, without focussing on the software but rather on the contribution of the Invention to the State of the Art. The contribution has to find expression in the Claim-set.
  3. The claimed invention taken in its entirety must have a significant expression in an area of technology.
  4. The inventive contribution as claimed in the claims must be novel and inventive (non-obvious) as required by Section 3. Alternatively, the means by which the invention achieves the contribution mist be novel and must include an inventive step.
  5. If the claimed process is only the steps carried out by the computer, the process will not be considered patentable subject matter. The software per se. is not a technological expression, since the software itself is protected by copyright.

The practicalities of the policy, together with the procedures that will be drafted following the change in policy will be published by the end of January. With their publication, the new policy will be implemented by the Israel Patent Office. The policy will be applied to all applications whose examination has not yet finished by the date of implementation, i.e. by 1 February 2011.

COMMENT

I do not fully understand the ramifications of this change of policy, which is worrying as I do draft software implemented patents for clients and need to advise them and also associates and clients filing in Israel under the Paris Convention or via the PCT mechanism, what is patentable subject matter in Israel. I hope that the guidelines will clarify the issue.

I suspect that the problem with my understanding is more a problem of the notice more than with my abilities. I wrote a semester paper on the subject of software patentability in Israel as part of my Law Degree, and despite getting a 98% grade for it, I wasn’t able to explain why certain patents issued under the old policy were allowed and others weren’t.

Nevertheless, I am pleased that the current Commissioner has ruled on this issue. The decision comes out on his last day in Office, rather like the US Supreme Court’s long-awaited and somewhat of a let-down decision on business method patentability in the US, in re Bilski.

I suspect that the interim Commissioner, Dr Guy Rotkopf, who will be serving as commissioner for the next month until a replacement is announced in February may find drafting clear guidelines and implementation a little difficult.

We await developments.


Finjan – developer turned troll?

July 16, 2010

Israel based software company Finjan has sued five rival security companies, including Symantec and McAfee, Webroot Software, Websense and Sophos.

In a lawsuit filed Monday in the U.S. District Court of Delaware, Finjan, claims that products of the defendants including McAfee’s Web Gateway and VirusScan software, Symantec’s Brightmail Gateway and Norton Antivirus all infringe core technology patents for antivirus products and security services that are held by Finjan.

Formerly a technology vendor, Finjan has sold out to M86, another security company, but still owns a patent portfolio, of about a dozen patents that are related to computer security. The company is now trying to claim royalties from these patents.

In 2008, Finjan won a jury verdict of 9.2 million dollars against Secure Computing which is now owned by McAfee.Having demonstrated that Secure Computing’s software packages Webwasher and CyberGuard TSP were infringed, A federal judge then increased the damages awarded to $13.8 million.

The company has asked the court to award unspecified financial damages and an injunction preventing the companies from selling their products.

COMMENT

Since the company no longer manufacturers, there is no longer the mutual destruction arrangement favoured by the high-tech world as an in-built mechanism to prevent companies going after injunctions. That said, it is clear that as they no-longer have a market share, Finjan have no interest in preventing others from using their patents. They simply want a reasonable royalty. It seems to me that it is not non-practicing entities that are the problem , but that there is no simple means to calculate fair royalties and to ensure that alleged infringers swiftly identify if they do indeed infringe, and, if so, that they enter into licensing negotiations in good faith.

I think that the cost of litigation in the US is the real problem, not that entities enforce their patents. Identifying and buying up patents to enforce (trolling) is not morally different from a litigating law firm working such cases on a percentage, or a university – which is typically a non-profit organization that benefits from the tax-payer and from philanthropic donations – from filing and then licensing its patents. These business models are acceptable in a free market.  Patents are not licenses to manufacture. They merely provide exclusion rights and using them for that purpose is legitimate. Trading in patents is based on the exclusion right being enforceable.  The ownersof this patent, if they manage to collect royalties, will no-doubt invest the money back into the economy. Transferrring patent rights to those that need it by licensing, and reinvesting resources is the basis of business. Good luck to them. Shame I don’t have shares.


Backweb Announces Resolution of Litigation with Microsoft

June 3, 2010

BackWeb Technologies Ltd has announced that it has reached a settlement concerning its patent infringement litigation with Microsoft Corporation.

Under the settlement, all claims are resolved and the BackWeb patents are now licensed to Microsoft. BackWeb’s operations are based in Santa Clara, CA and Rosh Ha’ayin, Israel.

Apart from being situated across the road from my Rosh Ha’Ayin office, Backweb is a company I am interested in as, in a previous life, I wrote up the installation guide and user manuals for their original software.


What is Software per se.?

December 7, 2009

Whilst Israel is reconsidering the patentability of software, the UK patent office and High Court are entrenched in technical effect and unpatentable mental acts.

The UK Intellectual Property Office has rejected the claims to a method of designing a better drill bit for use in oil drilling as being an unpatentable mental act. The hearing officer based this decision on obiter statements by Pumfrey J in Halliburton Energy Services, Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd and others [2005] EWHC 1623 (Pat), 21 July 2005. He rejected the applicant’s argument that Pumfrey J’s approach was inconsistent with Aerotel because it did not assess the contribution as a matter of substance, and ruled that Halliburton was almost identical with the facts in this case and that that Halliburton was consistent with Aerotel. The claims would apparently be patentable subject matter if amended to include a suitable manufacturing step. Case: Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. BL O/372/09, 25 November 2009.

The UK High Court has also found electronic TV guide patents invalid, ruling that two patents relating to on-screen, electronic TV programme guides (EPGs) were invalid as being directed to unpatentable computer programs, with no relevant technical effect. Mann J also held that they were presentations of information “as such”, applying the same relevant technical-effect tests as UK law applies to computer programs. However, a third patent, which provided a facility for transferring recorded programs with their EPG metadata to another storage medium, was not excluded from patentability as it was considered as provided a relevant technical effect. However, all three patents were invalidated over prior art. Case: Gemstar-TV Guide International Inc and others v Virgin Media Ltd and another [2009] EWHC 3068 (Ch), 26 November 2009.


Round Table on Software Patents at the Israel Patent Office

November 2, 2009

On the 15 October 2009, a round table was held between representatives of the patent practitioner professions and relevant staff of the Israel Patent Office.

Patent Attorney Ehud Hausman took the initiative and worked for 2 years to organize the round table, at which he presented a lecture demonstrating the problems he sees with the current Israel Patent Office practice regarding computer patents, particularly software patents.

Udi together with Michal Hackmey represented the Association of Israel Patent Attorneys. Dr. Kfir Luzzatto and Heidi Brun were also present, presumably as representatives of the AIPPI, as were representatives of the IP section of the Israel Bar.  More importantly, the relevant personnel of the Israel Patent Office, both examiners, the Commissioner of Patents and legal experts were present.

After the event, some members of the AIPA (those lucky enough to be on the mailing list) were sent a Power Point of Hausman’s presentation, which seemed remarkably well put together, and must have been a lot of work. He is thus commended for his initiative.

Briefly, in the past, the Commissioner of Patents has expressed the position that software is protectable by copyright and that it is therefore not patentable by the doctrine of double patenting.

Additionally, software per se. is not considered technical, unless there is a technical effect.

As I have explained in this blog in earlier articles, I consider the copyright double protection idea is problematic since copyright protects the embodiment of the idea and not the idea itself. Why shouldn’t a software invention be protectable against reengineering? Is a 70 year protection against copying of any value in a field where a generation is usually 2 years? Considering software not technical is ridiculous. software is rightly considered an engineering discipline. Since algorithms can be hard-wired into chips or by a machine with valves, the concept of software being different from hardware is somewhat arbitrary. Nevertheless, Lord Justice Jacobs has presented powerful arguments as to why software patents are not in the interest of promoting progress and there is a large open-source community.

The issues are somewhat complicated, and this is not the place to give a full overview of software patenting. However, the issue is a critical one, since Israel is a leading player in software development. We congratulate the organizers on this initiative and hope that the patent office will reconsider their policy and issue clear guidelines.

Nevertheless, I would be happier if Hausman had first presented his lecture to the AIPA at a meeting opened to the members. From reviewing the PowerPoint, I am that many practitioners would have found his lecture interesting. Particularly as many leading Israeli patent attorneys drafting computer applications rarely file and prosecute in Israel. I am sure that quality lectures of the AIPA would lead to high levels of registration. Furthermore, it would be nice if lobbying on behalf of the profession was done by the representative body after giving members the opportunity to express their views.


Israeli Company Red Bend sues Google over Chrome

November 1, 2009

Israeli start-up Red Bend Software Inc. has filed suite against Google Inc. for patent infringement over Google’s Chrome browser, with the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston.

Red Bend develops software for remote updating mobile content and managing connectivity between devices. The Israeli company claims that Chrome includes an algorithm that, for some reason beyond me, is called Courgette, that enables Google to distribute partial software updates. Courgette allegedly infringes a Red Bend patent registered in April 2003, on technology which enables wireless carriers to efficiently distribute updates for mobile-phone software. Red Bend is claiming willful infringement and thus triple damages.

Disclaimer:  I have no first hand knowledge or opinion as to whether Chrome infringes Red Bend’s software. For the record, I also have no opinion regarding Chrome, although as a Materials Scientist, prefer the more formal Chromium. As to Courgettes (zucchini), personally I prefer them to the light green kishu that is more commonly available in Israel.


Netex Obtains Patent for Search Optimization; may challenge Google and Yahoo

September 8, 2009

Netex, an Israel startup has been issued a US patent some 11 years after filing.

The patent called www.addressing relates to a method of WWW page retrieval from a web site, comprising entering information associated with the site; and directly displaying said page, using a browser, without any additional user intervention. Preferably, the information is in a non-Latin language. Alternatively or additionally, the information does not meet domain name specifications, for example, being in a free-form format.

The original priority document was filed in Israel in 1998.  Following allowance, Netex’ shares jumped 144%.  After perusing the claims, it does seem that they have the basis to sue giants like Google and Yahoo, but it is by no means clear that the patent will stand up in court, should a court hear the case. 

Google certainly have the search engines to find any missed prior art, but realistically, nothing will happen until the Supreme Court hears re Bilski, and it is not clear whether patents of this nature will remain patentable material or not.

If the large search engines choose to fight, they have the resources to do so. They may settle out of court.  Who knows?


Finjan get’s injunction against McAfee and $13.7 million in damages

August 23, 2009

In a 2006 lawsuit, Finjan accused Secure Computing of infringing patents for thwarting hostile downloads. In March 2008, a federal jury in Delaware awarded Finjan $9 million in damages. Secure Computing was bought in November 2008 by McAfee, which reported sales of $1.6 billion in 2008. 

The jury ruled that patents owned by Finjan, a company based in Netanya, Israel, were intentionally infringed, and according to an opinion by U.S. District Judge Gregory M. Sleet, Finjan has suffered irreparable harm and deserves Read the rest of this entry »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 93 other followers