Patentability Criteria Uk Vs Us Vs Eu
Patentability Criteria: UK vs US vs EU
Patent law protects inventions that meet specific criteria, but the standards differ slightly across jurisdictions.
1. Core Patentability Criteria
| Criteria | UK (UKIPO) | EU (EPO) | US (USPTO) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patentable Subject Matter | Invention must be a “technical” solution to a problem (CDPA 1988, s1) | Same: technical effect required; exclusions: software “as such,” mathematical methods (EPC Art. 52) | Broad: any “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” (35 U.S.C §101) but judicial exceptions for abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena |
| Novelty | Must be new globally (s2 CDPA) | Must be new globally (EPC Art. 54) | Must be new at filing; first-to-file system; novelty is absolute but “grace period” exists (35 U.S.C §102) |
| Inventive Step / Non-Obviousness | Must not be obvious to skilled person (s3 CDPA) | Must involve an inventive step, non-obvious to skilled person (EPC Art. 56) | Non-obvious: judged from prior art; “person having ordinary skill in the art” (35 U.S.C §103) |
| Industrial Applicability / Utility | Must be capable of industrial application (s4 CDPA) | Capable of industrial application (EPC Art. 57) | Must have specific, substantial, and credible utility (35 U.S.C §101) |
| Exclusions | Discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, aesthetic creations, business methods (CDPA s1(2)) | Same exclusions: discoveries, methods of doing business, presentation of information (EPC Art. 52(2)) | Laws of nature, natural phenomena, abstract ideas (Alice/Mayo test) |
2. Detailed Case Law Comparisons
A. UK Case Laws
Case 1: Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd [2006]
Facts:
A business method claimed as a telephone-based invention.
Issue:
Whether a business method can be patented.
Judgment:
UK Court of Appeal developed a 4-step “Aerotel test”:
Properly construe the claim
Identify the actual contribution
Ask if the contribution is technical
Check if the contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter
Relevance:
Business methods are not patentable unless there is a technical contribution.
UK law emphasizes technical effect, unlike US law, which can sometimes allow software and business method patents.
Case 2: Symbian Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents [2009]
Facts:
Software-related patent for smartphone OS.
Judgment:
Patent allowed because invention solved a technical problem (memory management and processing).
Relevance:
UK requires technical contribution, not just a business or mathematical method.
Contrasts with US approach where broader software patents are sometimes granted.
Case 3: Biogen Inc v Medeva plc [1997]
Facts:
Patent for DNA sequences.
Judgment:
UK court upheld patentability, but emphasized industrial applicability: sequence must be useful, not just discovered.
Relevance:
Confirms UK requirement for practical application.
B. EU Case Laws (EPO Decisions)
Case 4: T 258/03 (Hitachi/Computer Program)
Facts:
Computer-implemented invention (CIIs) for data processing.
Judgment:
EPO allowed patent because the invention produced a technical effect beyond normal software execution.
Relevance:
EU also requires technical character, similar to UK.
Software “as such” is excluded, but technical contribution allows patentability.
Case 5: G 3/08 (Tomato/Transgenic Plant)
Facts:
Patent for genetically modified tomato resistant to disease.
Judgment:
EPO held patentable because invention has industrial applicability and solves a technical problem.
Relevance:
Confirms biotech patents are patentable under EPC if technical and industrially applicable.
C. US Case Laws
Case 6: Diamond v Chakrabarty [1980]
Facts:
Patenting genetically engineered bacteria.
Judgment:
Supreme Court allowed patent because bacteria were human-made and useful, establishing broad US patentable subject matter.
Relevance:
US allows broader biotech and life science patents than UK/EU.
Case 7: Alice Corp v CLS Bank International [2014]
Facts:
Software and financial method patent.
Judgment:
Supreme Court invalidated patent: abstract idea implemented on a computer is not patentable unless it provides inventive concept beyond the abstract idea.
Relevance:
Similar principle to UK/EU “technical contribution,” but US applies the Alice test.
Case 8: Mayo Collaborative Services v Prometheus Laboratories [2012]
Facts:
Method for optimizing drug dosage based on metabolite levels.
Judgment:
Not patentable: method claimed laws of nature, lacked inventive concept.
Relevance:
Reinforces US requirement for practical application with inventive concept, paralleling UK industrial applicability but interpreted differently.
3. Comparative Observations
| Aspect | UK | EU | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Software / Business Methods | Only patentable if technical contribution | Only if technical effect beyond software as such | Broader patentability; abstract ideas excluded (Alice) |
| Biotech / Life Sciences | Must be industrially applicable | Technical contribution & industrial application | Very broad; human-made inventions patentable (Diamond) |
| Novelty / Inventive Step | Absolute novelty; inventive step judged via skilled person | Similar; inventive step requires non-obviousness | Non-obviousness; first-to-file; grace period exists |
| Technical Contribution / Effect | Required for software, business, biotech | Required; must solve technical problem | Less rigid; US looks for inventive concept beyond abstract idea or law of nature |
| Industrial Applicability / Utility | Mandatory | Mandatory | Mandatory as “specific, substantial, credible utility” |
4. Key Takeaways
UK and EU patent law emphasize technical contribution and industrial applicability; software and business methods are only patentable if they solve a technical problem.
US patent law is broader but still excludes abstract ideas, natural laws, and natural phenomena (Alice/Mayo).
Biotech inventions are patentable in all three jurisdictions but the scope of allowable claims differs.
Software patents are easier to get in the US than in UK/EU.
Case law in all jurisdictions highlights the balance between encouraging innovation and preventing monopolization of abstract ideas or natural discoveries.
RELATED Blog
comments