The technicality requirement, patents scope and patentable subject matter in Australia

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

33 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The technicality requirement confines patentable subject matter to practical processes and products. It excludes theoretical knowledge and methods of conducting services as such from patentability. In a post-industrial age, there may be good arguments to abandon this limiting requirement, because innovation has become highly scientific and because services now form such an important part of industrial activity. However, because the underlying effect of the requirement is to limit the scope of patent claims, it should arguably be retained: patents of excessively broad scope have a negative aggregate welfare effect. In any case, even within the constraints of technicality, courts applying the NRDC principles retain sufficient flexibility to adapt the concept of "manner of manufacture" to rapid evolution in science and industry.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)309-327
Number of pages29
JournalAustralian Intellectual Property Journal
Volume13
Publication statusPublished - 2002

Fingerprint

patent
flexibility
welfare
innovation
industry
science

Cite this

@article{beb35c17d0e94c86891c1dfb7614abc7,
title = "The technicality requirement, patents scope and patentable subject matter in Australia",
abstract = "The technicality requirement confines patentable subject matter to practical processes and products. It excludes theoretical knowledge and methods of conducting services as such from patentability. In a post-industrial age, there may be good arguments to abandon this limiting requirement, because innovation has become highly scientific and because services now form such an important part of industrial activity. However, because the underlying effect of the requirement is to limit the scope of patent claims, it should arguably be retained: patents of excessively broad scope have a negative aggregate welfare effect. In any case, even within the constraints of technicality, courts applying the NRDC principles retain sufficient flexibility to adapt the concept of {"}manner of manufacture{"} to rapid evolution in science and industry.",
author = "{Van Caenegem}, William",
note = "This article is published by the {\circledC}Lawbook Co., part of Thomson Legal & Regulatory Limited. http://www.thomson.com.au Permission granted.",
year = "2002",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "309--327",
journal = "Australian Intellectual Property Journal",
issn = "1038-1635",
publisher = "Lawbook Co.",

}

The technicality requirement, patents scope and patentable subject matter in Australia. / Van Caenegem, William.

In: Australian Intellectual Property Journal, Vol. 13, 2002, p. 309-327.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The technicality requirement, patents scope and patentable subject matter in Australia

AU - Van Caenegem, William

N1 - This article is published by the ©Lawbook Co., part of Thomson Legal & Regulatory Limited. http://www.thomson.com.au Permission granted.

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - The technicality requirement confines patentable subject matter to practical processes and products. It excludes theoretical knowledge and methods of conducting services as such from patentability. In a post-industrial age, there may be good arguments to abandon this limiting requirement, because innovation has become highly scientific and because services now form such an important part of industrial activity. However, because the underlying effect of the requirement is to limit the scope of patent claims, it should arguably be retained: patents of excessively broad scope have a negative aggregate welfare effect. In any case, even within the constraints of technicality, courts applying the NRDC principles retain sufficient flexibility to adapt the concept of "manner of manufacture" to rapid evolution in science and industry.

AB - The technicality requirement confines patentable subject matter to practical processes and products. It excludes theoretical knowledge and methods of conducting services as such from patentability. In a post-industrial age, there may be good arguments to abandon this limiting requirement, because innovation has become highly scientific and because services now form such an important part of industrial activity. However, because the underlying effect of the requirement is to limit the scope of patent claims, it should arguably be retained: patents of excessively broad scope have a negative aggregate welfare effect. In any case, even within the constraints of technicality, courts applying the NRDC principles retain sufficient flexibility to adapt the concept of "manner of manufacture" to rapid evolution in science and industry.

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 309

EP - 327

JO - Australian Intellectual Property Journal

JF - Australian Intellectual Property Journal

SN - 1038-1635

ER -