Internet Services & Software

Question 2

2.1
What types of internet services related inventions should we protect?

2.2
How do we protect internet services/software related inventions in your jurisdiction?

2.3
Do we need special claims for internet services related inventions in your jurisdiction?

2.4
What effect do cases like In re Bilski and In re Comiskey have, if any, on internet services/software related patents?

2.5
Why are traditional "method" claims not sufficient? Or are they?

2.6
Who infringes a services related patent?

2.7
How do we protect new revenue generation concepts, for example internet services where the revenue comes from advertising?


Answer 2

2.1, 2.2, 2.3 & 2.7
Pure business methods, rules and schemes are not patentable in Malaysia. However, the practice here has been such that claims are drafted to cover technical features of the particular invention that relates to pure business methods, rules and schemes. Although there is no clear regulation that prohibits patentability of Internet services, again the claims must be drafted to cover technical features of said Internet service invention. With regards to the coding of the written software, copyright protection maybe sought.

2.4
In re Bilski is related to a method of managing the risk of bad weather through commodities trading whereas In re Comiskey is related to method and system for mandatory arbitration involving legal documents. As theses cases pertained to pure business methods patents, the cases will not be relevant in Malaysia as these patents are statutorily prohibited and have no persuasive effect in Malaysia being US cases.

2.5
Method claims are sufficient so long as the same are drafted to cover technical features of the particular invention to protect Internet services and software related inventions.

2.6
As Malaysia does not have provision for business method patents, the closest we have to a services related p process patents. The infringement will be as stated in 1.5 above.