Archive for the ‘Patents’ category

Canadian Patent Office allows Amazon.com’s “one-click” patent

December 31st, 2011

Last month the Federal Court of Appeal issued its reasons in the Amazon.com “one-click” patent case. Since the Court of Appeal directed the Commissioner to revisit Amazon.com’s application, it was not clear whether or not the patent was eligible subject matter.[1] The decision of the Court of Appeal left many questions unanswered.

It appears that the Patent Office has now determined that Amazon.com’s patent application,  “Method and System For Placing A Purchase Order Via A Communication Network” (Canadian Patent Application No. 2,246,933), is eligible subject matter. Patent Office records show that following an amendment made on December 22, 2011 a Notice of Allowance was issued on December 23, 2011. The records also show that the Final Fee was paid on December 28, 2011.

Developments in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law (2010-2011)

June 15th, 2011

Here are the slides used in my presentation to the Toronto Computer Lawyers Group earlier today, The Year in Review: Developments in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law (2010-2011). It covers significant developements since my talk last spring.

The slides include a summary of the following cases and statutory materials:

Privacy:

Cite Cards Canada Inc. v. Pleasance, 2011 ONCA 3

Leon’s Furniture Limited v. Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2011 ABCA 94

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Privacy Commissioner of Canada, 2010 FC 736

Nammo v. TransUnion of Canada Inc., 2010 FC 1284

Amazon files brief to Federal Court of Appeal in the one-click patent case

April 6th, 2011

Amazon filed its responding brief in the “one click” patent appeal. As Amazon notes, “The Appeal  raises  issues  fundamental  to  the  Canadian  patent  system:  (i)  the  proper approach to patent claims construction, and (ii) the scope of  patentable subject matter in Canada.”

The appeal arises out of Amazon’s application for a patent for an invention entitled “Method and System  for  Placing  a  Purchase  Order  Via  a  Communications  Network”. The  application  relates  to  a  communications network based method and  system for  placing an  order and, more particularly, to  a method and system for purchasing and ordering items over the Internet.

Amazon.com going to the Federal Court of Appeal

November 15th, 2010

The AG of Canada and the Commissioner of Patents have filed a  Notice of Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal in the Amazon.com case. In the notice, the government argues that the decision of the Federal Court of Canada released on October 14, 2010, Amazon.com, Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada was wrong and that Amazon’s one click patent is not patentable subject matter in Canada.

The Patent Appeal Board rejected Amazon’s “One-Click” patent application. Re Patent Application No. 2,246,933 (March 5, 2009) for three principal reasons:

With “One Click”, Business Methods Are Patentable in Canada

October 15th, 2010

In a decision of the Federal Court of Canada released on October 14, 2010, Amazon.com, Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada, the Court allowed an appeal from a ruling by the Commissioner of Patents (“Commissioner”) that had originally denied a patent application by Amazon.com Inc. (“Amazon”) for its pervasively successful one click online ordering technology. The Commissioner had held that the subject matter of Amazon’s application did not qualify as patent-eligible subject matter the Patent Act. In overturning this finding, the Court instead held that the Commissioner applied wrong legal tests in rejecting Amazon’s patent application, and articulated a new test that does not preclude computer-implemented innovations and business methods from being patented in Canada if they are directed to subject matter that meets the general test of what may constitute an “invention” under section 2 of thePatent Act.

Are business methods patentable under Bilski in the US?

July 2nd, 2010

Earlier this week, the US Supreme Court released its opinion in the BILSKI ET AL. v. KAPPOS case. The Court affirmed the decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals that the invention in issue, a method of hedging risk, was not-patentable. However, there appears to be some significant disagreement in deciding exactly what the Court decided, as relates to the question of the patentability of business methods. On my reading of judgment, by a majority of 5 to 4, the Court was of the view that pure business methods are not patentable subject matter in the US.

Developments in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law (2009-2010)

May 26th, 2010

Here are the slides used in my presentation to the Toronto Computer Lawyers Group earlier today,  The Year in Review: Developments in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law (2009-2010). It covers significant developements since my talk last spring.

The slides include a summary of the following cases and statutory references:

Tercon Contractors Ltd. v. British Columbia, 2010 SCC 4

Internet Broadcasting Corporation Ltd. v Mar LLC [2009] EWHC 844 (Ch)

Gammasonics Institute for Medical Research Pty Ltd v Comrad Medical Sysytems Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 267 (9 April 2010)

Kingsway Hall Hotel Ltd. v Red Sky IT (Hounslow) Ltd. [2010] EWHC 965

UK Court finds online gaming system non-patentable subject matter

December 16th, 2009

As Canada is still pondering the patentability of computer subject matter in the Amazon “one-click” patent case, UK courts continue to examin patents for computer related subject matter. The latest case is Cranway Ltd v Playtech Ltd & Ors [2009] EWHC 1588 (Pat) (07 July 2009). The patent involved an on-line gambling invention. The court found the invetion to be obvious. it also found the patent excluded subject matter under

The court summarized the law in its reasons as follows:

“(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:

Rejection of Amazon’s One-Click patent attacked in appeal brief

December 4th, 2009

Amazon has filed its Memorandum of Fact and Law in its appeal from the Canadian patent office rejection of its “One-Click” patent application. Re Patent Application No. 2,246,933 (March 5, 2009), Patent Appeal Board and the Commissioner of Patents Decision.

The Board had ruled the one click invention non-statutory for three principal reasons.

First, the Board ruled that if a claimed invention is not “an act or series of acts performed by some physical agent upon some physical object and producing in such object some change either of character or of condition”; it is not an art under Section 2 of the Patent Act.

Toronto Computers Lawyers Group (2006-2007)

June 26th, 2007

Toronto Computers Lawyers Group (2006-2007)