Industrial applicability

In certain jurisdictions' patent law, industrial applicability or industrial application is a patentability requirement according to which a patent can only be granted for an invention which is susceptible of industrial application, i.e. for an invention which can be made or used in some kind of industry. In this context, the concept of "industry" is far-reaching: it includes agriculture, for instance. An example of invention which would not be susceptible of industrial application is "a method of contraception [...] to be applied in the private and personal sphere of a human being".[1]

In relationship with United States patent law, the utility requirement is a more or less corresponding, but different, requirement.

Jurisdictions

European Patent Convention

At the European Patent Office (EPO), the requirement that an invention is susceptible of an industrial application has generally been taken to be more or less automatically fulfilled but a 2005 decision of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO saw this requirement analysed in new detail. In decision T870/04 it was held that the mere fact that a substance can be made in some way does not necessarily mean that the requirements of Article 57 EPC are fulfilled, unless there is also some "profitable use" for which the substance can be employed.[2]

When an alleged invention does not comply with the generally accepted laws of physics, the industrial application requirement is related to the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure, i.e. the fact that a "patent application must disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art".[3][4]

Article 52(4) EPC excludes "methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body" from patentability, because these methods are regarded as not susceptible of industrial application.[5] The purpose of this exclusion is "to deny patent protection to methods which serve medical purposes, so that no one could be hampered in the practice of medicine by patent legislation." [6]

Japan

Main article: Japanese patent law

See also

References and notes

  1. ↑ Decision T 74/93 of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office
  2. ↑ Decision T 870/04
  3. ↑ "In T 541/96 the board noted that according to Art. 52(1) EPC 1973 a European patent could be granted for an invention which was, inter alia, susceptible of industrial application. This concept was related to the obligation on an applicant to give a sufficient description of the invention, as required by Art. 83 EPC 1973. An invention or an application for a patent for an alleged invention which would not comply with the generally accepted laws of physics would be incompatible with the requirements of Art. 57 and 83 EPC 1973 because it could not be used and therefore lacked industrial application. The description would moreover be insufficient to the extent that the applicant would not be able to describe how it could be made to work." in Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO (7th edition, September 2013), i.e.1.1 "General issues".
  4. ↑ See also, for cases at the United Kingdom Patent Office (UK-IPO), UK-IPO gets tougher on perpetual motion, IPKat, 12 June 2008. Consulted on June 12, 2008.
  5. ↑ Article 52(4) EPC
  6. ↑ Special edition 6/2007, EPO Board of Appeal Case Law 2006, pages 17-18.

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Sunday, February 15, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.