Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Computer-Implemented Inventions in Europe

  • Chapter
Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators

Part of the book series: Springer Handbooks ((SHB))

  • 3525 Accesses

Abstract

The dispute between proponents and opponents of the patent system has been especially visible with regard to the patenting of computer programs. Different developments have resulted in the fact that there are large differences in the patent practices between the European Patent Office (EPO) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). While software as such is patentable at the USPTO, the EPO prohibits patenting of pure computer programs and only allows patenting of computer implemented inventions ( ).

In this chapter, we investigate the differences between the European and American patent systems with regard to patenting computer programs by also addressing the historical developments that have resulted in the national differences. Based on these considerations, a definition of CII is derived, which enables us to carry out empirical analyses.

By applying a conservative estimate, our results show that the share of CII filings at the EPO lies at around \({\mathrm{25}}\%\) at present, while at the USPTO a current margin of approximately \({\mathrm{33}}\%\) is reached. Thus, at least every fourth patent at the EPO and every third patent at the USPTO is a CII filing. In order to take account of the factual (technological and economical) relevance of computer-implemented inventions, we argue for clear rules with regard to patenting CII, as they are essential to reduce uncertainties and provide the relevant incentives for innovation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • H. Grupp: Foundations of the Economics of Innovation—Theory, Measurement and Practice (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham 1998)

    Google Scholar 

  • S.R. Adams: Information Sources in Patents (K.G. Saur, Munich 2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Frietsch, U. Schmoch, B. van Looy, J.P. Walsh, R. Devroede, M. Du Plessis, T. Jung, Y. Meng, P. Neuhäusler, B. Peeters, T. Schubert: The Value and Indicator Function of Patents, Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, Vol. 15-2010 (Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation, Berlin 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Frietsch, P. Neuhäusler, O. Rothengatter: Patent Applications—Structures, Trends and Recent Developments, Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, Vol. 8-2012 (Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation, Berlin 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • U. Schmoch, H. Grupp: Wettbewerbsvorsprung durch Patentinformation – Handbuch für die Recherchepraxis. Karlsruhe, Fraunhofer-Institut für Systemtechnik und Innovationsforschung (ISI) (Verlag TÜV Rheinland, Köln 1990)

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Bessen, M.J. Meurer: Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton 2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Bessen, M.J. Meurer: The Patent Litigation Explosion, Working Paper Series Law and Economics, Vol. 05–18 (Univ. School of Law, Boston, Boston 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Bessen, M.J. Meurer: What's wrong with the patent system? Fuzzy boundaries and the patent tax, First Monday (2007), https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v12i6.1867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R.W. Hahn: An overview of the economics of intellectual property protection. In: Intellectual Property Rights in Frontier Industries: Software and Biotechnology, ed. by R.W. Hahn (AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Washington 2005) pp. 11–44

    Google Scholar 

  • M.A. Heller, R.S. Eisenberg: Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research, Science (1998), https://doi.org/10.1126/science.280.5364.698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C. Shapiro: Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard-setting. In: Innovation Policy and the Economy, NBER Book Series Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. 1, ed. by B.A. Jaffe, J. Lerner, S. Stern (MIT Press, Cambridge 2001) pp. 119–150

    Google Scholar 

  • K. Blind, J. Edler, R. Nack, J. Straus, M. Friedewald, R. Frietsch (Eds.): Software-Patenten. Eine empirische Analyse aus ökonomischer und juristischer Perspektive, Schriftenreihe des Fraunhofer-Instituts für Systemtechnik und Innovationsforschung ISI “Technology, Innovation and Policy”, Vol. 49 (Physica, Heidelberg 2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • K. Blind, J. Edler, M. Friedewald: Software Patents, an Empirical Analysis from an Economic Perspective (Fraunhofer IRB, Stuttgart 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  • K. Blind, J. Edler, M. Friedewald: Software Patents, Economic Impacts and Policy Implications, New horizons in intellectual property (Elgar, Cheltenham 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Rammer: Innovationsverhalten der Unternehmen in Deutschland 2005 - Aktuelle Entwicklungen – öffentliche Förderung – Innovationskooperationen – Schutzmaßnahmen für geistiges Eigentum, Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, Vol. 13-2007 (Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung (ZEW), Mannheim 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • C. Edquist, M. McKelvey: Systems of Innovation, Growth, Competitiveness and Employment (Edward Elgar, Northampton 2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • B.-A. Lundvall, D. Foray: The knowledge-based economy. In: Employment and Growth in the Knowledge-Based Economy, ed. by OECD (OECD, Paris 1996)

    Google Scholar 

  • E. Malecki: Technology and Economic Development. The Dynamics of Local, Regional and National Change (Longman, Harlow 1991)

    Google Scholar 

  • R.R. Nelson, P.M. Romer: Science, economic growth, and public policy. In: Technology, R&D, and the Economy, ed. by B.L.R. Smith, C.E. Barfield (The Brookings Institution, Washington 1996)

    Google Scholar 

  • P.M. Romer: The origins of endogenous growth, J. Econ. Perspect. (1994), https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.1.3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P. Hanel: The use of intellectual property rights and innovation by manufacturing firms in Canada, Econ. Innov. New Technol. (2008), https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590701581481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J.E. Stiglitz: The Theory of International Public Goods and the Architecture of International Organizations, United Nations Background Paper, Vol. 7 (United Nations, Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis, New York 1995)

    Google Scholar 

  • J.E. Stiglitz: Economic foundations of intellectual property rights, Duke Law J. 57(6), 1693–1724 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • K. Arrow: Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention, ed. by R. Nelson (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton 1962) pp. 609–626

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • J.E. Stiglitz: Knowledge as a global public good. In: Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century, ed. by I. Kaul, I. Grunberg, M. Stern (Oxford Univ. Press, New York 1999)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • S. Borrás, B. Kahin: Patent reform in Europe and the US, Sci. Public Policy 36(8), 631–640 (2009), https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209X474589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K. Blind, J. Edler, R. Frietsch, U. Schmoch: Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany, Res. Policy 35(5), 655–672 (2006), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K. Blind, J. Edler, R. Frietsch, U. Schmoch: Erfindungen kontra Patenten. Schwerpunktstudie “zur technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands”, Endbericht für das Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (Fraunhofer-Institut für System- und Innovationsforschung, Karlsruhe 2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • W.M. Cohen, R.R. Nelson, J.P. Walsh: Appropriability Conditions and why Firms Patent and why They Do not, Working Paper, Vol. 7552 (National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge 2000)

    Google Scholar 

  • N. Harabi: Appropriability of technical innovations: An empirical analysis, Res. Policy (1995), https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)00812-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P. Neuhäusler: The use of patents and informal appropriation mechanisms—Differences between sectors and among companies, Technovation (2012), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2012.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A. Arundel, P. Patel: Strategic Patenting — Background Report for the Trend Chart Policy Benchmarking Workshop “New Trends in IPR Policy” (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Guellec: Patents as an incentive to innovate. In: The Economics of the European Patent System—IP Policy for Innovation and Competition, ed. by D. Guellec, B. van Pottelsberghe (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford 2007) pp. 46–84

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • C. Mersch: Die Welt der Patente – Soziologische Perspektiven auf eine zentrale Institution der globalen Wissensgesellschaft (transcript, Bielefeld 2013)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • E. Kitch: The nature and function of the patent system, J. Law Econ. (1977), https://doi.org/10.1086/466903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • N.T. Gallini, R.A. Winter: Licensing in the theory of innovation, Rand J. Econ. (1985), https://doi.org/10.2307/2555412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Z. Griliches: The search for R&D spillovers, Scand. J. Econ. (1992), https://doi.org/10.3386/w3768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A.B. Jaffe, M. Trajtenberg, R. Henderson: Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations, Q. J. Econ. (1993), https://doi.org/10.2307/2118401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A.B. Jaffe: Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: evidence from firm's patents, profits, and market value, Am. Econ. Rev. (1986), https://doi.org/10.3386/w1815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A.B. Jaffe, M.S. Fogarty, B.A. Banks: Evidence from patents and patent citations on the impact of NASA and other federal labs on commercial innovation, J. Ind. Econ. (1998), https://doi.org/10.3386/w6044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A.B. Jaffe, M. Trajtenberg, M.S. Fogarty: Knowledge spillovers and patent citations: evidence from a survey of inventors, Am. Econ. Rev. (2000), https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.2.215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • N. Thumm: Research and Patenting in Biotechnology: A Survey in Switzerland (Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, Bern 2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • D.L. Rubinfeld, R. Maness: The strategic use of patents: Implications for antitrust. In: Antitrust, Patents and Copyright: EU and US Perspectives, ed. by F. Leveque, H. Shelanski (Edward Elgar, Northampton 2005) pp. 85–102

    Google Scholar 

  • M.A. Heller: The tragedy of the anticommons: Property in the transition from Marx to markets, Harv. Law Rev. 111(3), 621–688 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D.S. Evans, A. Layne-Farrar: Software patents and open source: The battle over intellectual property rights, Va. J. Law Technol. 10(10) (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  • J.E. Cohen, M.A. Lemley: Patent scope and innovation in the software industry, Calif. Law Rev. (2001), https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38ZD8J

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Supreme Court of the United States: Diamond vs. Diehr: 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981), Full case name: Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks v. Diehr, et al.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: In re Alappat: 33 F.3d 1526, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 1994), Full case name: In re Kuriappan P. Alappat, Edward E. Averill and James G. Larsen

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: In re Beauregard: 53 F.3d 1583, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1995)

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: State Street vs. Signature Financial: 149 F.3d 1368, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 1998), Full case name: STATE STREET BANK & TRUST CO., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SIGNATURE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant-Appellant

    Google Scholar 

  • European Patent Office: Examination of computer-implemented inventions at the European Patent Office with particular attention to computer-implemented business methods, Official J. EPO 11, 594–600 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • I. Muir, M. Brandi-Dohrn, S. Gruber: European Patent Law: Law and Procedure Under the EPC and PCT (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford 2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission: Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, Official J. Eur. Communities COM/2002/0092 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof – BGH): Patentierbarkeit computerimplementierter Erfindungen, www.gesmat.bundesgerichtshof.de/gesetzesmaterialien/15_wp/computerimplerfind/compimplerf-index.htm (2008)

  • Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (Bundesministerium der Justiz – BMJ): Press Release: EP weist Standpunkt zu computerimplementierten Erfindungen zurück (Referat Presse- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit des Bundesministeriums der Justiz, Berlin 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • J.R. Allison, M.A. Lemley: Who's patenting what? An empirical exploration of patent prosecution, Vanderbilt Law Rev. 53, 2099 (2000), https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.223312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J.A. Bergstra, P. Klint: How to find a software patent? In: Draft Interim Deliverable for an EC Consulting Project on Software Patents (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Bessen, R.M. Hunt: An empirical look at software patents, J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 16(1), 157–189 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2007.00136.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • E. Josefsson: The Gauss project: foundation for a free information infrastructure. In: 5th EPIP Conf.: Eur. Policy Patents Intellectual Property: What Direction Should it Go? (EPIP, Maastricht 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • F. Rentocchini: Sources and characteristics of software patents in the European Union: Some empirical considerations, Inf. Econ. Policy (2011), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2010.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Z. Xie, K. Miyazaki: Evaluating the effectiveness of keyword search strategy for patent identification, World Patent Inf. (2013), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2012.10.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S.J.H. Graham, D.C. Mowery: Intellectual property protection in the U.S. software industry. In: Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy, ed. by W.M. Cohen, S.A. Merrill (National Academies, Washington 2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • S.J.H. Graham, D.C. Mowery: Software patents: Good news or bad news? In: Intellectual Property Rights in Frontier Industries: Software and Biotechnology, ed. by R.W. Hahn (AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Washington 2005) pp. 45–80

    Google Scholar 

  • J.R. Allison, E.H. Tiller: Internet business method patents. In: Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy, ed. by W.M. Cohen, S.A. Merrill (National Academies, Washington 2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • U. Schmoch: Definition of Patent Search Strategies for Selected Technological Areas (Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe 2003), Report to the OECD

    Google Scholar 

  • N. Chabchoub, J. Niosi: Explaining the propensity to patent computer software, Technovation 25(9), 971–978 (2005), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.02.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A. Layne-Farrar: Defining Software Patents: A Research Field Guide, AEI-Brookings Joint Center Working Paper, Vol. 05-14 (AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Washington 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Bessen, R.M. Hunt: An Empirical Look at Software Patents, Working Paper, Vol. 03-17/R (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Philadelphia 2004)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • U. Schmoch: Concept of a Technology Classification for Country Comparisons (Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe 2008), Final Report to the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Competence Center Policy – Industry – Innovation, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Peter Neuhäusler

  2. Competence Center Policy – Industry – Innovation, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Rainer Frietsch

Authors
  1. Peter Neuhäusler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rainer Frietsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Neuhäusler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ECOOM and Faculty of Economics and Business, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Wolfgang Glänzel

  2. Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Henk F. Moed

  3. Competence Center Policy – Industry – Innovation, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Ulrich Schmoch

  4. Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK

    Mike Thelwall

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Neuhäusler, P., Frietsch, R. (2019). Computer-Implemented Inventions in Europe. In: Glänzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch, U., Thelwall, M. (eds) Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Springer Handbooks. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_41

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation