BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> I2 Technologies US, Inc. (Patent) [2010] UKIntelP o41710 (1 December 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2010/o41710.html
Cite as: [2010] UKIntelP o41710

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


I2 Technologies US, Inc. [2010] UKIntelP o41710 (1 December 2010)

For the whole decision click here: o41710

Patent decision

BL number
O/417/10
Concerning rights in
GB 0604820.1
Hearing Officer
Miss J Pullen
Decision date
1 December 2010
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
I2 Technologies US, Inc.
Provisions discussed
PA 1977 Section 1(2)(c)
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused)
Related Decisions
GB 0604622.1, GB 0604769.0

Summary

The methods, systems and computer programs described in the application are concerned with the management of a supply chain and particularly with controlling access of trading partners in the supply chain to particular stages or "states" of the supply chain, in particular the trading partner can view the transaction in a given state, the state being for instance when a buyer is tendering or later on when a buyer is committed. The trading partners in the supply chain could be customer or supplier and manufacturer, buyer or a third-party.

The administrator of the supply chain management system, a trading partner or a vendor can use the user interface to enter information into a state model which defines how particular trading partners can interact with the transaction state, the state model either being an existing stored example or one that can be customised by the trading partner.

In coming to her decision the Hearing Officer considered the decision in Symbian and

analysed the claims using the Areotel/Macrossan four step test. The Hearing Officer found that the contribution related to a method of doing business, that the contribution was not technical and was therefore excluded under Section 1(2)(c) of the Act.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2010/o41710.html