International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research

E-ISSN: 2582-2160   •   Impact Factor: 9.24

A Widely Indexed Open Access Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Bi-monthly Scholarly International Journal

Call for Paper Volume 7, Issue 2 (March-April 2025) Submit your research before last 3 days of April to publish your research paper in the issue of March-April.
Submit Research Paper Join as a Reviewer

Plagiarism is checked by the leading plagiarism checker TurnItIn

Call for Paper

Volume 7 Issue 2
March-April 2025

Submit your research paper

Indexing Partners
Academia Advanced Sciences Index Bielefeld Academic Search Engine CiteSeer DRJI Google Scholar Independent Search Engine & Directory Network ISI (International Scientific Indexing) Issuu Mendeley Research Networks
RefSeek ResearcherId - Thomson Reuters ResearchGate Scirus Scribd Semantic Scholar UTeM - Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka Wiki for Call for Papers WorldCat Zenodo

Applicability of the Term ‘As Such’ While Protecting the Computer Programs: An Outlook for European Law

Author(s) Sonia Jain
Country India
Abstract ‘The automatic bar on patent protection for computer programs ‘as such’ in section 1(2) of the Patents Act 1977 is unduly restrictive and out of step with modern information technology-based innovation. This exception to patentability should be removed from the Act so that any program meeting the basic requirements of novelty, inventive step, etc. is patentable like any other invention.’ The current paper aims to analyse section 1(2) of the Patents Act 1977 and its relation with article 52(2) EPC. It further tries to establish the differences between the two approaches. The aim remains to analyse why EPO changed its approach for a narrower interpretation of ‘as such’ and why the UK refuses to follow. The essay will show that the English interpretation of ‘as such’ in section 1(2) is not suitable for the computer programming market reality of today concerning the economic and industry changes in size and structure. The attempt has been made to focus on showing that section 1(2) is too restrictive considering the type of businesses and innovations and a broader interpretation of ‘as such’ effects. The UK’s law had expressed intentions to remain in harmony with the EPO, ‘collocation’ as an alternative solution to following the ‘any hardware approach’ and the lack of benefit the total removal of section 1 (2) would bring.
Keywords Patents, Computer Programs, European Patent Convention.
Field Sociology > Administration / Law / Management
Published In Volume 5, Issue 4, July-August 2023
Published On 2023-07-26
DOI https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2023.v05i04.4688
Short DOI https://doi.org/gsjjqz
View / Download PDF File

Share this



E-ISSN 2582-2160
CrossRef

CrossRef DOI is assigned to each research paper published in our journal.

IJFMR DOI prefix is
10.36948/ijfmr

Downloads
Research Paper Format Copyright Permission Form and Undertaking Form Cover Page Vol 7 Isu 2Cover Page Vol 7 Isu 1Cover Page Vol 6 Isu 6

All research papers published on this website are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, and all rights belong to their respective authors/researchers.

CC-BY-SA Open Access

About IJFMR
Fees & Payment
Current Issue
Publication Archive 		Submit Research Paper
Track Submission Status
Publication Guidelines
Publication Ethics
Peer Review & Plagiarism 		Join as a Reviewer
Editors & Reviewers
Reviewer Referral Program
Get Reviewer Membership Certi. 		Website/Journal Policies
Usage Policy
Content Policies
Privacy Policy
Contact Us +91-9687-828-838 editor@ijfmr.com