II.

The legal situation in Sweden

Yes, there are exclusions in Sweden from patentability due to the abstract nature of an invention. Sweden is a member of the European Patent System and the Swedish Patent Act has been harmonized with the EPC. Article 1, paragraph 2, point 3, in the Swedish Patent Act, is a word-by-word equivalent to Article 52(2)(c) EPC.

Business methods are explicitly excluded from patentability in Article 1, Paragraph 2, point 3, in the Swedish Patent Act.

In a case from 1971 (RÅ 1971 H 65), the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court ruled on a patent application for a method to train persons in the right tempo for a particular task. The method was implemented with an information storage medium, a tape or similar object, recorded with a program for teaching the listener a work process at different tempos. The Court found that this was not an invention with a technical character and therefore excluded from patentability.

The exclusion concerns only the methods "as such".

Business methods can be protected as trade secrets. However, business methods cannot, as such, be protected by copyright in Sweden.

Not applicable in Sweden.

III.

Opinions of the Swedish group

Yes, if a person is put in front of a problem, regardless of the nature of that problem, and if that person can provide a solution that is new and inventive in relation to known solutions to that problem, then this solution constitutes an invention.

Sweden is a member of the WTO and has signed the TRIPs Agreement. Article 27(1) TRIPs provides that "patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application." This general principle, when considered together with the provisions pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 27, can be interpreted as meaning that it is the intention of TRIPs not to exclude any inventions of a technical nature. However, the Swedish group nevertheless believes that an exclusion of patentability for business methods is in conformity with Article 27. Business methods are not traditionally seen as a particular field of technology, capable of industrial application, and are therefore not obligatory, but possible, to protect.

Yes, if a person has provided a solution to a problem, which solution is an invention, then this person should be able to obtain protection for that invention if he is willing to publish his invention so that others can benefit from this publication.

The possibility to gain protection for a business method through patent should be without exceptions. It would be awkward to limit the patentability of business methods to Internet applications since we do not know what the future holds in regards to communication except for the Internet. What is Internet, does it cover Intranets, LAN:s, two computers communicating, or just the management of a business method within one computer even if this one computer might be connected to Internet? Let us avoid limitations that will be awkward in a near future.

Not applicable

A patented business method may enable e.g. a more successful production of new information or it may be a more successful method for marketing products. To preserve the value of the business method patent, it may in many of these instances be necessary for the patentee to be able to prevent the importation of products (e.g. information) produced or marketed elsewhere, through use of the patented business method. Thus, the Swedish group believes that it is necessary for the patentee to be able to prevent the importation of products marketed or produced (in the case of information) elsewhere in accordance with the protected business method. There may, however, be exceptions to this rule, in particular where the connection between the business method and the products sold, is too remote and too difficult to establish, for there to be a necessity for the patentee to be able to prevent the importation. The exceptions are, however, difficult to establish at the moment and must probably be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

The Swedish group believes that in principle the rules for assessment of the scope of patents covering business methods should be the same as for traditional inventions. Therefore, if courts apply the doctrine of equivalents, the doctrine should also be available for business method patents. It may, however, be particularly important to take into consideration the actual technical or commercial contribution made by the inventor, in determining the scope of the business method patent.

If the adaptation of the known method to new means of communication, such as Internet, brings fourth a new unexpected advantageous effect, not merely due to the fact that the new means of communication is used, then yes, otherwise no.

The Swedish group believes that the usual rules with respect to acts of infringement should be applied to business method patents. This includes, in Sweden, a defence against an alleged infringement, based on prior secret use of the invention by the defendant. If an invention has been practiced for business purposes by the defendant on the date the patent application was filed, the prior secret use may continue, but it may not be enlarge or transferred except as a part of the undertaking in which the use took place. This defence is not limited to methods of "doing or conducting business".

The rules concerning compensation for losses due to patent infringements are in Sweden mainly made up of two components: a normal licence fee and compensation for any additional damage caused by the infringement (e.g. loss of profit opportunities or market position). These calculations appear to be applicable in relation to business method patents also, provided that there is a market for the licences in question. Therefore we believe that the rules should be the same.

Yes, the Swedish group believes that the same rules of evidence should apply. In Article 34 of the TRIPs Agreement it is provided that in some cases any identical product when produced without the consent of the patent owner shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be deemed to have been obtained by the patented process. A similar reversal of the burden of proof would probably also be necessary in relation to business method patents, e.g. if some information has been developed and the information is structured in the same manner as that which would result from a patented business method. However, the legitimate interests of the defendant in protecting his trade secrets must also be taken into account.

Summary

The Swedish delegation believes that it should be possible to protect business methods through patent. This will cause some problems just as all changes will cause problems. One of these problems is that when it comes to new matter within the patentable area, the patent offices do not have any prior art for this matter in their patent databases. This problem is reduced since the patent offices are doing more searches in other sources than the patent databases. Internet itself is developing into a sharper tool when it comes to finding prior art. The patent offices need to learn how to work with these new tools so that they can be used effectively, not only because they are valuable in the search for traditionally patentable matter, but also so that they can be used in the search for new patentable matter, such as business methods.

Résumé

La délégation suédoise considère qu'il devrait être possible de protéger des méthodes commerciales par brevets d'invention. Cela posera des problèmes, comme toute changement. L'un de ces problèmes sera que, quant aux éléments nouveaux dans la domaine de brevetabilité, les Offices de Brevets ne possèdent pas de documentation de la technique connue dans ce domaine, dans leurs bases de données de brevets. Ce problème est reduit comme les Offices de Brevets effectuent plus de recherches dans d'autres sources que dans les bases de données de brevets. L' Internet en soi se developpe vers un outil plus fin en ce que concerne la possibilité de trouver la technique connue. Les Offices de Brevets ont besoin d'apprendre comment utiliser ces nouvels outils en vue d'en profiter avec plus d'efficacité, non seulement parce qu'ils sont importants dans la recherche de matière brevetable traditionel, mais aussi pour qu'ils soient utilisables dans la recherche pour matière brevetable nouveau, comme méthodes d'activités commerciales.

Zusammenfassung

Die schwedische Delegation ist der Ansicht, dass es möglich sein sollte, Geschäftsmethoden durch ein Patent zu schützen. Dies wird sicher Probleme mit sich bringen, so wie alle Veränderungen Probleme verursachen können. Eines der Probleme besteht darin, dass die Patentämter keinen Stand der Technik bezüglich einem neuen, patentierbaren Bereich in ihren Datenbanken speichern. Dieses Problem sollte jedoch weniger stark ins Gewicht fallen, da die Patentämter ihre Suche mehr und mehr auf andere Quellen als die Patentdatenbanken erstrecken. Das Internet als solches entwickelt sich auch zu einem schärferen Werkzeug auf der Suche nach dem Stand der Technik. Die Patentämter sollten unbedingt lernen, mit diesen neuen Werkzeugen umzugehen, und wie sie effektiv eingesetzt werden können, nicht nur weil sie bei der Suche auf traditionellem, patentierbarem Gebiet wertvoll sind, sondern auch weil sie bei der Suche auf einem neu zu patentierendem Bereich eingesetzt werden können, wie zum Beispiel Geschäftsmethoden.