Article 52 (2) determines what is and is not patentable subject matter within the EU:

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

(a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;

(b) aesthetic creations;

(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;

(d) presentations of information.

My business partners and I are filing for a UK patent. The patent is for software and has an application number. We are still to file the claims.

Throughout the entire time we have been dealing with our patent lawyer we have been unable to get out of him a straight answer on UK software patents. This is likely due to the nature of the invention and the extremely complicated guidelines in the UK. Most people tend to point you to Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan as they don't really know the answer themselves.

The invention
The invention is a program. It will mostly be used on the internet. The user enters data (raw material) into the program, tweaks settings and receives a downloadable document (end product).

Article 52 (2) (c) states that "programs for computers" are non patentable matter. However, after the A v T case the UK patent office developed a new method for what describes an invention:

  1. Properly construe the claim;
  2. Identify the actual contribution;
  3. Ask whether the contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter; and
  4. Check whether the contribution is technical in nature.

Steps 1, 2 and 4 are easily passed. It is step three where most software patents fail and what we are hoping to beat.

From the IPO site, Patentable Subject Matter page, point 14:

14 - Also left open is a question over permissible forms of claim: can claims to a computer program (or a program on a carrier) be allowable when other claims in a different form, claims covering the use of that particular program, would be allowed? In the past, the Office has allowed such claims on the basis that substance should prevail over form. Whilst the judgment maintains the emphasis on substance over form, it also characterises the first step as deciding what the monopoly is, and if the monopoly does not go beyond the program, the contribution is also unlikely to go beyond "a program for a computer". Accordingly, whilst examiners will continue to assess each case on its merits, it seems likely that few claims to programs in themselves (or programs on a carrier) will pass the third test.

So, since the user will using the program for the end product and not for the program itself will this mean that we have patentable subject matter under UK law?

This is hotly debated topic but unfortunately not well understood by many.

  • Not under law (the law is IMNSHO quite clear), but quite likely from the courts (as they IMNSHO bend the law). Commented Jan 19, 2013 at 1:02
  • Please dont try, giving a computer data to process and looking at the result is not new, it is if anything their job. Doing it over the internet is nothing special, just like what language it is written in. (Linux user, EVERYTHING is a file, I pipe programs together, open files, and use sockets over networks, all of them can be read using the read function, hence "all files")
    – Alec Teal
    Commented Mar 23, 2014 at 18:59
  • Also just checked your blog, classes are not namespaces! With your regex thing, having a function called "isLegalUserName" is what makes sense, but that function is closely associated with the idea (class) of a user, so a static method on the user object makes sense.
    – Alec Teal
    Commented Mar 23, 2014 at 19:01
  • I know this is an old thread, but I want to know what company or Gov contact/website did you use to file a Patent? I hope to file one soon but probs with the help of a Patent Lawyer. Thanks, Shuaib Commented Dec 10, 2014 at 13:57

1 Answer 1


Based on the rules, you seem to be looking at the wrong criterion. The end-user's goal is mostly irrelevant.

What matters is where you innovation lies. If your innovation is in the end product, and would be present even if the end-user obtained the product using a process that did not involve software running on a computer, then the rule against patents on software probably wouldn't apply.

On the other hand, if your innovation is in the process the end users follows to obtain the product, and that process is carried out by software running on a computer, then chances are pretty good that your application will be rejected on the grounds that it applies to software.

  • The end product is not the innovation for which the patent is applied. The patent has been applied for the device which produces the end product. The user makes a few settings (c/f patented mechanical devices that create end products), clicks a button and the device (a computer program) then creates the end product which is unique literature fit for a specific purpose. The user therefore uses this unique program for its end product - should this pass the test? (This is completely different to, say a word processing program where the user creates the end product out of the users mental input).
    – joe92
    Commented Jan 24, 2013 at 21:27
  • 1
    @joe92: I think at that point you're close enough to the "edge" between allowed and not that almost nobody but the patent office or a court can really give a good answer. Commented Jan 24, 2013 at 21:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .