| Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan's Application | |
|---|---|
.svg) | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of England and Wales |
| Full case name | Aerotel Ltd(a company incorporated under the laws of Israel) v. Telco Holdings Ltd, Telco Global Distribution Ltd, Telco Global Ltd; And In the Matter of: The Patents Act 1977; And in the Matter of Patent Application GB 0314464.9 in the name of Neal William Macrossan |
| Decided | October 27, 2006 |
| Citation(s) | [2006] EWCA Civ 1371 |
| Transcript(s) | [2006] EWHC 997 (Pat) [2006] EWCA Civ 1371 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Chadwick LJ, Jacob LJ, Neuberger LJ |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Jacob LJ |
| Keywords | |
| Computer programs, software and patent law |
|---|
 |
| Topics |
| Treaties |
| Countries |
| Case law |
| Related topics |
Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan's Application[1] is a judgment by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The judgment was passed down on 27 October 2006 and relates to two different appeals from decisions of the High Court. The first case involved GB 2171877[2] granted to Aerotel Ltd and their infringement action against Telco Holdings Ltd and others. The second case concerned GB application 2388937 filed by Neal Macrossan but refused by the UK Patent Office (now operating as the UK Intellectual Property Office).
The reasoning in the judgment forms the basis for the current practice of the UK Intellectual Property Office, when assessing whether patent applications are for patentable subject matter.
The approach applied in the judgment has been criticized by a Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) as being "irreconcilable with the European Patent Convention".[3]
- ^ Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holding Ltd and others, and Neal William Macrossan's application [2006] EWCA Civ 1371 (27 October 2006)
- ^ Note: This link goes to the published patent application, not the granted patent.
- ^ Decision T 154/04 of November 15, 2006, Reasons 13.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search