Source: http://www.visaepatentes.com/2010/03/utility-model-protection-for-computer.html?widgetType=BlogArchive&widgetId=BlogArchive1&action=toggle&dir=open&toggle=YEARLY-1293836400000&toggleopen=MONTHLY-1267398000000
Timestamp: 2019-06-26 07:03:30
Document Index: 793552392

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5', '§ 8', '§ 15', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 1']

Visae Patentes: Utility Model Protection for Computer-related Inventions in Germany
A utility model is much cheaper than a patent.
Since a utility model is (i.) cheaper, (ii.) provides a quicker full protection, ((iii.) has reduces novelty requirements and a six months grace period and (iv.) has a reduced term of protection as compared to a patent, the utility model is far better adaptred to the innovation and product cycles of software industry than a patent. And, a German utility model may represent a basis for internantional PCT filing as well (see here for an FAQ of the GPTO).
Further to that, the unique splitting off procedure of German utility model law (§ 5 GbmG) may subsequently provide a full IP right if a filed patent application turns out to not fulfill the substantial requirements of patent law. A utility model can be split off from a patent application having the same contents - also to obtain flanking protection during the otherwise unprotected patent pendency period - since upon registration of the split-off utility model the invention enjoys full protection and the priority of the underlying patent application irrespective of the outcome of the patent grant procedure. Splitting off a utility model is allowable within 10 years from the date of filing of the original patent application, whereas the utility model application must be submitted within two months from the rejection or withdrawal of the patent application at the latest.
The substantial requirements as to inventiveness of a registered utility model are examined only in cancellation proceedings before the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA). The utility model unit registers the utility model without previously examining if the substantive requirements are met (§ 8 GbmG). In case of a dispute, cancellation proceedings will clarify whether the registered invention is in fact new and involves an inventive step (§ 15 GbmG), in contrast to an “inventive act” as required for patent protection. However, other than this terminological difference might anticipate, established case law clarifies that the inventive step requirement of the utility model act cannot be regarded being a lower level of inventiveness as compared to the inventive act requirement of patent law (Demonstrationsschrank, BGH X ZB 27/05, 26.06.2006).
Protection of Computer-implemented Inventions: Despite the statutory exclusion of “processes” (§ 2 Nr. 3 GbmG) and “programs for computers as such” (§ 1 (2) Nr. 3, (3) GbmG), the decision “Signalfolge” (X ZB 9/03, 17.02.2004) of the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) opened as door to utility model protection for computer-impelmented inventions. The underlying application claimed a system, a computer program product and a computer related to variable tariffing of Internet charges.
That is, the BGH merely decided that a signal sequence cannot be excluded from utility model protection only due to the fact that the signal sequence may represent data to be processed by a computer. The case was thus referred back to the Patent Court to decide whether the invention relates to a computer program as such according to § 1 (3) GbmG, which would the of course render the invention unstatutory subject-matter.
Conclusion: As a general rule of thumb, the BGH confirmed that computer-implemented inventions may - under certain circumstances - be protected by a utility model, since they cannot any more be excluded from protection for the sole reason that they may represent a method. As is known for conventional operation methods that can be protected by instead claiming a "means adapted for conducting the method" enriched with a reasonable level of structural features, a computer-implemented method may also be protected by a "computer (program product) adapted to ...". However, as a consequence of the BGH ruling, a computer-implemented invention may now also be claimed as a signal sequence representing data to be executed by a computer - as long as the executed data does not represent a computer program as such.
posted by Unknown on 3/04/2010
Labels: BGH, BPatG, CII in Europe, CII in Germany, Utlility Model