Filing software patents

Procedure for Trademark Opposition in India December 27, Share with Friends. Share on facebook. Share on twitter. Share on linkedin.

Share on email. US: This blog contains general information for the convenience of readers and does not purport to dispense legal advice and is not intended to solicit or advertise in any manner. Gurgaon,Haryana India No Attorney-Client Relationship The use of our blog, and the sending or receipt of information via this platform does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and us.

All Rights Reserved. This is the time to look at all software that may be similar to yours, in order to prove that yours is novel. This can be a long process, but taking your time here can save you money down the road if it turns out yours infringes on someone else's or the USPTO determines that it is not unique. Review the U. Copyright Office website to see if any similar programs have been registered. Once you've located any programs that may be similar to yours, you can use that information to craft a detailed description of your own software to clearly articulate the ways in which your program differs from others.

Keep in mind that a technician should be able to create your system based only on your description. Your description should include:. In addition, you must explain how your program qualifies for patent protection. In other words, does it display the qualities of novelty, utility, and ingenuity? A word of warning—avoid characterizing your software as an algorithm. Instead, describe how it affects computer hardware by executing an algorithm.

S Copyright Office and reject your patent application. From this exercise, you can now create an abstract. This one-page document must summarize why it deserves protection, including the nature and function.

After thoroughly researching prior art and meticulously describing your program, you are now ready to file your application online using the USPTO's EFS system.

The system will prompt you to enter basic information and to upload your abstract. Finally, you will be required to execute an oath, swearing that you are the inventor or are an agent legally authorized to act on their behalf. It may take even longer than that to get a patent, so in many cases, the process is not worth it. Software is also unique in that developers continue to create even without getting a patent. Copyrights and Trade Secret Protection may be enough motivation to innovate even when getting a patent isn't possible.

Also, the widespread use of open source software illustrates that software continues to come into existence without any intellectual property protection at all. A third reason software is unique in the world of patents it that these patents are often overly broad. Related to this is the fact that software is difficult to describe in precise terms. Software patents have been a topic of debate for decades. In , they created guidelines saying that computer programs were unpatentable.

However, via a long series of court cases, this viewpoint gradually changed. These cases included:. The guidelines are constantly changing as the result of cases in the Supreme Court and the Federal Court of Appeals. Guidelines issued in gave direction on both hardware and software patents. One of the primary purposes of the guidelines is to help the USPTO decide whether specific inventions qualify for patents. Temporary guidelines were released in late because of the case Alice Corp v.

CLS Bank. The Supreme Court decided that software for managing settlement risk did not qualify for a patent. It was labeled an abstract idea. In the Alice case, the court decided that a claim on the patent application focused on an abstract idea.

This is notable because most patents have some sort of abstract idea in them, but in this incident, the claim was specifically directed at that idea. The court's decision involved a lot of legalese, but the end result had a vast impact on the world of software patent law. The Alice case set a precedent. If a piece of software improves the way a computer or another device functions, it is more likely to qualify for a patent.

This case, as well as the Bilski v Kappos case, contributed to the ever-changing guidance on what is patentable and what is not. Many patents were labeled invalid after the Alice case. After software was first recognized as deserving of patents, the USPTO still didn't research as well as it should have when reviewing applications.

This resulted in some patents being issued for inventions that did not truly deserve it. Many believe that software patents are a threat to innovation. This is because new programs often rely on older, patented programs to work well. Patents can interfere with developers' ability to put existing programs to use. For example, a smartphone developer may be stopped from using — and perhaps improving on — a certain type of menu because a competitor holds the patent for that component.

Thousands of software patents are in effect, and each one gives its holder the right to stop others from using that software program for 20 years. This puts limits on innovation. One group, End Software Patents, lists some reasons why they believe that software should not be patentable.

The suits affect not only technology companies but many other types of businesses. It is also worth noting that many modern conveniences, such as email and the internet, came into existence before it was widely accepted that software is patentable. The creators of these inventions did not need patents to innovate.