Macrossan had tried to patent an automated
system for acquiring the documents necessary to incorporate a
company in the UK. He told OUT-LAW.COM that he was puzzled by the
Lords' decision.
"Naturally I am disappointed by the result.
But such is life," he said. "I must say, however, that I am rather
perplexed by the one sentence reason given by the House of Lords
Appeal Committee for refusing leave in my case, namely, 'permission
is refused because the petition does not raise an arguable point of
law of general public importance'."
"Previously, no one has ever seriously
questioned that the matter was of general public importance, not
even the 'anti-patent software proponents'," he said. "And of
course the Court of Appeal itself pronounced that 'billions (euros,
pounds or dollars) turn on it.' And as to there been no arguable
point of law, then why so much legal arguing to date?"
Macrossan's patent application was denied by
the Patent Office's hearing officer in 2005, then by the High
Court. He sought and obtained leave to appeal to the Court of
Appeal, which also blocked his application.
The UK's Patents Act states that something
cannot be patented if it is: "a scheme, rule or method for
performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business, or a
program for a computer". The High Court ruled that the application
should fail on both the mental act and computer program
grounds.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the application
for a patent was invalid both because it was a computer program and
because it was a business method. "We hold that Mr Macrossan's idea
is excluded from patentability," said the appeal court judges.
Macrossan applied to the House of Lords for
the right to appeal that decision, but has now been refused that
permission. A committee of Lords Hoffman, Walker and Mance refused
the bid.
Macrossan said that, in the light of many of
the statements made in the many parts of the case, the Lords could
not reasonably have concluded that there was no arguable point of
law of general public importance, which was the reason the Lords
gave for refusing the appeal.
Lord Justice Jacob of the Court of Appeal had
said that "the issue of article 52 exclusion is of public
interest," Macrossan pointed out. He also pointed out that the
Court of Appeal said that the numbers of cases relating to these
exemptions were increasing dramatically.
