Journal of Intellectual Property Rights

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

IP Protection to Software:Conflict Between Indian Provision and Practice


Affiliations
1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Mumbai-400008, Maharashtra, India
 

Human life, in the recent past, has been affected most by the rapid advancement of information technology and allied inventions. Commerce, entertainment, sports, business, life style etc. have seen a drastic change in the manner they are being carried out and how the consumers or end users have responded to them. These advancements demand innovation and continuous development of the software and hardware involved in the process; and an innovation being an investment of intellectuality demands the economy for an equivalent return. These demands have been met by the protections granted through grant of exclusive rights, with exceptions, under the jurisprudence of intellectual property, more precisely through patent regime. However, software was for a long time considered as non-patentable because of it falling into the pool of non-patentable subject matters. This became an issue with the appearance of Independent Software Vendors who developed software which were not attached to a particular hardware. In order to promote those innovations, judicial pronouncement in US in Benson-Flook-Diehr trilogy along with international documents like PCT and TRIPS played crucial role. This paper focuses more on the provisions and practice relating to grant of protection to advancement in the field of information and technology in India. The paper analyses the practice of Indian Patent Office, from the data available, and explains the existing legal framework and jurisprudence in order to suggest solutions to the issue at hand. The paper demands a tailor made and industry beneficial policy, keeping in mind the socio-economic condition of the state.

Keywords

Software Patenting, TRIPS, PCT, Indian Patent Office, CRI Guidelines, Non-Patentable Subject Matter.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Suman Y & Gupta V K, Patenting Issues in Software Industry, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 7 (6) (2002) 516-525.

  • Ceccagnoli Marco et al., Co-Creation of Value In A Platform Ecosystem: The Case of Enterprise Software, http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/∼bakos/wise/papers/wise2009-p06_paper.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2016).

  • Cockburn I M & Mac Garvie M J, Patents, thickets and the financing of early-stage firms: Evidence from the software industry, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(3) (2009) 729-773.

  • Lerner J & Zhu F, What is the impact of software patent shifts? Evidence from Lotus v Borland, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 25(3) (2007) 511-529.

  • Swinson J, Copyright or patent or both: An algorithmic approach to computer software protection, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 5 (1991) 145.

  • Suman Y & Gupta V K, Patenting issues in software industry, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 7(6) (2002) 516-525.

  • Gupta V K, Managing software protection, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 6(6) (2001) 277-285.

  • Hall B H, On Copyright and Patent Protection for Software and Databases: A Tale of Two Worlds, Paper for Granstrand Volume, June 2002, https://eml.berkeley.edu/∼bhhall/papers/ BHH%20OGvol02.pdf. (accessed on 10 May 2016).

  • Dereny E, Software Copyright and Software Patent, http://www.stikeman.com/2011/en/pdf/SoftwareCopyright_Patent_Derenyi_07.pdf. (accessed on 10 May 2016).

  • Kumar A, According Legal Protection to Intellectual Property Rights in Softwares (Directorate of Extramural Research & Intellectual Property Rights, Defence Research & Development Organisations, 2000), 4-43.

  • Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips 04c_e.htm. (accessed on 10 May 2016).

  • TRIPS Article 27 (1).

  • Correa C M, Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights: A Commentary on TRIPS Agreement (Oxford university Press 2007) 207.

  • TRIPS Article 27.1.

  • TRIPS Article 27.2 & 27.3.

  • TRIPS Article 10.

  • Samuelson P, Symposium: Towards a Third Intellectual Property Paradigm, Article: A manifesto concerning the legal protection of computer programs, Columbia Law Review, 2308 (1994) 94.

  • The European Patent Convention (EPC), https://www.epo.org/ law-practice/legal-texts/epc.html (accessed on 12 May 2017).

  • EPC Article 52(2).

  • EPC Article 52(3).

  • Patents for Software, European Law and Practice, European Patent Office, https://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/ software.html (accessed on 12 May 2017).

  • Gottschalk v Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972).

  • Gottschalk v Benson, at 67.

  • Gottschalk v Benson, at 70.

  • Gottschalk v Benson, at 72.

  • Parker v Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978).

  • Parker v Flook, at 594.

  • Diamond v Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).

  • Diamond v Diehr, at 183-89.

  • In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

  • Examination Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions, 61 Fed. Reg. 7478 (Feb. 28, 1996).

  • TRIPS Article 27.

  • Enercon India Limited, Daman v Aloys Wobben, Germany, M.P. Nos. 8/2010, 36/2010 and 59/2010 in ORA No. 20/2009/PT/CH and ORA No. 20/2009/PT/CH decided on 18th November 2010.

  • Enercon India Limited, Daman v Aloys Wobben, Germany, M.P. Nos. 8/2010, 36/2010 and 59/2010 in ORA No. 20/2009/PT/CH and ORA No. 20/2009/PT/CH decided on 18th November 2010. The Judgment was delivered by Technical Member of the Intellectual Property Board, S. Chandrasekaran. In this connection, the Board referred to the famous Vicom case/computer related invention decided in EPO (1987) 1 OJEPO 14 (T208/84).

  • Yahoo v Controller and Rediff, OA/22/2010/PT/CH; Accenture Global Service Gmbh, Switzerland v Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, New Delhi and another, OA /22/2009/PT/DEL and Miscellaneous Petition No. 118/2012 in OA/22/2009/PT/DEL.

  • CRI Guidelines 2013 (Withdrawn by the Indian Patent Office).

  • Wilson N, Computer Related Inventions (CRIs) revisited by the Indian Patent Office – Finalizing CRI Guidelines-Third Attempt, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 21 (2) (2016) 117-119, 118.

  • CRI Guidelines 2015 (Withdrawn by the Indian Patent Office).

  • CRI Guidelines 2016.

  • Section 3 of Indian Patent Act 1970. “(k) a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms; (l) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or any other aesthetic creation whatsoever including cinematographic works and television productions; (m) a mere scheme or rule or method of performing mental act or method of playing game; (n) a presentation of information;”

  • Malhotra K, Implications of New CRI Guidelines on Software Patenting in India, http://gip-india.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/new-software-patent-CRI-guidelines-india.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2017).

  • Annual Report 2012-13, Intellectual Property India, http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOAnnualReport/1_30_1_annual-report-12-13.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2017).

  • Annual Report 2014-15, Intellectual Property India, http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOAnnualReport/1_54_1_AnnualReport_English_2014_2015.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2017).

  • Annual Report 2011-12, Intellectual Property India, http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOAnnualReport/1_34_1_annual-report-11-12.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2017).

  • Annual Report 2013-14, Intellectual Property India. Available at http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/IPOAnnualReport/1_29_1_annual-report-13-14.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2017).


Abstract Views: 234

PDF Views: 155




  • IP Protection to Software:Conflict Between Indian Provision and Practice

Abstract Views: 234  |  PDF Views: 155

Authors

Abhijeet Kumar
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Mumbai-400008, Maharashtra, India

Abstract


Human life, in the recent past, has been affected most by the rapid advancement of information technology and allied inventions. Commerce, entertainment, sports, business, life style etc. have seen a drastic change in the manner they are being carried out and how the consumers or end users have responded to them. These advancements demand innovation and continuous development of the software and hardware involved in the process; and an innovation being an investment of intellectuality demands the economy for an equivalent return. These demands have been met by the protections granted through grant of exclusive rights, with exceptions, under the jurisprudence of intellectual property, more precisely through patent regime. However, software was for a long time considered as non-patentable because of it falling into the pool of non-patentable subject matters. This became an issue with the appearance of Independent Software Vendors who developed software which were not attached to a particular hardware. In order to promote those innovations, judicial pronouncement in US in Benson-Flook-Diehr trilogy along with international documents like PCT and TRIPS played crucial role. This paper focuses more on the provisions and practice relating to grant of protection to advancement in the field of information and technology in India. The paper analyses the practice of Indian Patent Office, from the data available, and explains the existing legal framework and jurisprudence in order to suggest solutions to the issue at hand. The paper demands a tailor made and industry beneficial policy, keeping in mind the socio-economic condition of the state.

Keywords


Software Patenting, TRIPS, PCT, Indian Patent Office, CRI Guidelines, Non-Patentable Subject Matter.

References