Neal Macrossan is attempting to gain a UK patent for his
invention, which is an automatic system for collating the forms
needed to form a company. The long-running case has been closely
watched as a test of whether or not the law on software patents
would change in the UK.
"There is an issue of law here that affects not just me, but all
sorts of interested parties," said Macrossan, who lives in
Australia. "Unlike the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords is not
bound by any previous decisions, including its own."
Patent attorneys Marks & Clerk will coordinate the team
representing Macrossan, which includes its own solicitors and
Alastair Wilson QC of Hogarth Chambers. Whilst Macrossan will pay
court fees, the team is not requiring him to pay their professional
fees.
"This is an area of great public interest, especially given the
failure of the EU directive on computer-implemented inventions to
restore a pan-European consensus," said Dr John Collins of Marks
& Clerk.
When Macrossan applied for a patent his application was refused
by the UK Patent Office. His appeals to both the Patent Office and
the High Court were unsuccessful. He was given permission early
this summer to take his case to the Appeals Court, when a judge
said his case had "a real prospect of success".
The European Patent Convention (EPC) does not allow patents to
be awarded for inventions which are nothing more than "schemes,
rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or
doing business, and programs for computers". That was brought into
UK law by the Patents Act of 1977.
The Appeals Court last month rejected his application, ruling
that it was both a business method and a computer program and
therefore ineligible for a patent.
The Patent Office has just issued a practice note which advises
applicants and attorneys on the effect of the Macrossan ruling on
its behaviour with regard to patent applications. The Patent Office
said that it would treat the Macrossan ruling, and a ruling on a
company called Aerotel considered in parallel with it, as the
definitive statement on software and business method patent
applications, and would follow its precedent above previous
ones.
"The Office takes the view that Aerotel/Macrossan must be
treated as a definitive statement of how the law on patentable
subject matter is now to be applied in the UK," said the Patent
Office. "It should therefore rarely be necessary to refer back to
previous UK or European Patent Office (EPO) case
law."
