list of software patents

{{clr}}

class=wikitable ! width="15%" | Number ! width="65%" | Comments ! width="10%" | Other family members ! width="10%" | Earliest filing date

valign="top" | {{Cite patent|country=US|number=5193056}} (Main article: State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group) | This patent was at the center of a US Federal Circuit judgment in 1998 which confirmed that business methods implemented on a computer are patentable in the US since they produced a "useful, concrete and tangible result".{{Cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/patent/comments/96_1327.htm |title=Financial services software containing algorithm is patentable |publisher=Cornell University |accessdate=2007-04-12}} The claims of the corresponding European patent application were rejected by the European Patent Office (EPO) as relating to unpatentable subject matter.{{EPO Register|appno=92908680|patno=0575519}} | {{Cite patent|country=EP|number=0575519|status=application}} | 1991-03-11

valign="top" | {{Cite patent|country=US|number=5960411}} (Main article: 1-Click) | Amazon.com sued Barnes & Noble for violating its "One click buy" but the case was ultimately settled.{{Cite web |url=http://news.cnet.com/2100-1017-854105.html |title=Amazon, Barnes & Noble settle patent suit |publisher=CNET |accessdate=2007-04-12 |archiveurl=https://archive.today/20120711225137/http://news.cnet.com/2100-1017-854105.html |archivedate=2012-07-11 |url-status=dead }} Amazon has so far failed to obtain a similar patent in Europe.{{Cite web |url=http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2007/02/another-setback-for-amazon-1-click.html |title=Another setback for Amazon 1-click |publisher=IPKat |accessdate=2007-04-12}} | {{Cite patent|country=EP|number=1134680|status=application}} | 1997-09-12

valign="top" | {{Cite patent|country=GB|number=2388937|status=application}} (Main article: Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan's Application) | Although granted in several non-European countries, the patent application was refused as relating to excluded subject matter under UK law as being a method of doing business and a program for a computer as such.{{cite BAILII |litigants=Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holding Ltd and others, and Neal William Macrossan's application |court=EWCA |division=Civ |year=2006 |num=1371 |date=2006-10-27}} The case law developed in refusing this patent application forms the basis for the current practice of the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) when deciding whether to grant patent applications involving excluded subject matter such as computer programs.{{Cite web |url=http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-law/p-law-notice/p-law-notice-subjectmatter.htm |title=Patents Act 1977: Patentable subject matter |accessdate=2007-03-12 |publisher=UK Intellectual Property Office |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070206031521/http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-law/p-law-notice/p-law-notice-subjectmatter.htm |archivedate=2007-02-06 }} The EPO have refused to search for prior art that might be relevant to the corresponding European patent application, stating that such a search would serve no useful purpose since the application solves no technical problem.{{EPO Register|appno=01997756|patno=1346304}} | {{Cite patent|country=EP|number=1346304|status=application}} {{Cite patent|country=AU|number=759130B}} {{Cite patent |country=NZ|number=526345}} {{Cite patent |country=SA|number=20034644}} | 2000-11-23

valign="top" | {{Cite patent|country=US|number=7013284}} |Accenture sued Guidewire Software in December 2007, alleging their infringement of this insurance technology patent. Accenture alleged that Guidewire infringed the US patent protecting an insurance claims management technology that Accenture developed and licenses to the insurance industry. Intellectual property suits are not common in the insurance software market and this suit may represent a new front in the intellectual property wars according to one analyst.{{Cite web |url=http://newsroom.accenture.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=4625 |title=Accenture Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Guidewire |publisher=Accenture |accessdate=2007-12-31}}{{Cite web |url=http://www.financetech.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205100771 |title=Accenture Sues Guidewire for Alleged Patent Infringement |publisher=FinanceTech (Information Week InformationWeek) |accessdate=2007-12-31}} | | 1999-05-04

• {{Cite patent|country=US|number=5016009}} {{En dash}} (Main article: Stac Electronics)
• {{Cite patent|country=US|number=4701745}} {{En dash}} also granted as {{Cite patent|country=GB|number=2172127}}This link goes to the patent application. Electronic copies of granted GB patents are not freely available - now expired

: Stac Electronics sued Microsoft for patent infringement when Microsoft introduced the DoubleSpace data compression scheme into MS-DOS.{{Cite web

|url=http://www.vaxxine.com/lawyers/articles/stac.html

|title=Complaint for patent infringement and Demand for jury trial by Stac Electronics v Microsoft Corporation

|accessdate=2007-04-21

|url-status=dead

|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070509205650/http://www.vaxxine.com/lawyers/articles/stac.html

|archivedate=2007-05-09

}} Stac was awarded $120 million by a jury in 1994 and Microsoft was ordered to recall versions of MS-DOS with the infringing technology.{{Cite web

|url = http://www.msversus.org/archive/stac.html

|title = Microsoft Loses Patent Suit

|publisher = Associated Press

|date = February 23, 1994

|accessdate = 2007-04-21

|url-status = dead

|archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20070518050821/http://www.msversus.org/archive/stac.html

|archivedate = May 18, 2007

}}

• {{Cite patent|country=US|number=5579430}} {{En dash}} (Main article: MP3)

: One of several

{{Cite web

|url=http://www.mp3licensing.com/patents

|title=MP3 Patent Portfolio

|publisher=Thomson

|accessdate=2007-04-21}} patents covering the MP3 format owned by the Fraunhofer Society which led to the development of the Ogg Vorbis format as an alternative to MP3.{{Cite web

|url=http://xiph.org/press/2003/flac

|title=FLAC Joins Xiph.Org

|date=January 29, 2003

|publisher=Xiph.org

|accessdate=2007-04-21}}

• {{Cite patent|country=US|number=5627938}} {{En dash}} (Main article: Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft)
• {{Cite patent|country=US|number=5341457}}

:Two patents owned by Alcatel-Lucent relating to MP3 technology under which they sued Microsoft for $1.5 billion.{{Cite web

|url=http://crunchgear.com/2007/02/24/patent-monkey-details-on-alcatels-15-b-win-against-microsoft

|title=Patent Monkey: Details on Alcatel's $1.5 B Win Against Microsoft

|publisher=CrunchGear

|accessdate=2007-04-21}} Microsoft thought they had already licensed the technology from Fraunhofer, and this case illustrates one of the basic principles of patents that a license does not necessarily permit the licensee to work the technology, but merely prevents the licensee from being sued by the licensor.{{Cite web

|url=http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2007/02/my-thats-lot-of-money.html

|title=My, that's a lot of money

|publisher=IPKat

|accessdate=2007-04-21}}

• {{Cite patent|country=US|number=4558302}} (Main article: GIF)
• {{Cite patent|country=EP|number=0129439}}

: Unisys's patent on LZW compression, a fundamental part of the widely used GIF graphics format.

• {{Cite patent|country=US|number=4698672}} and its EP equivalent {{Cite patent|country=EP|number=0266049}}
• (Main article: Forgent Networks)

: Forgent Networks claimed this patent, granted in 1987, covered the JPEG image compression format. The broadest claims of the US patent were found to be invalid in 2005 following re-examination by the US Patent and Trademark Office.[http://www.pubpat.org/forgentjpeg.htm Review of the Forgent JPEG case by the Public Patent Foundation]

• {{Cite patent|country=US|number=5710835}}
• {{Cite patent|country=EP|number=0864135}}

{{Update|type=section|date=November 2010}}

: This patent, owned by Lizardtech, Inc., was the subject of infringement proceedings against companies including Earth Resource Mapping, Inc. However, Lizardtech lost the trial on the grounds that an important part of their invention was the step of "maintaining updated sums of discrete wavelet transform coefficients from the discrete tile image to form a seamless discrete wavelet transform of the image". Claim 21 of the patent lacked this feature and was therefore obvious. The remaining claims contained this feature, but were not infringed by ERM.[http://www.ermapper.com/jpeg2000/standards/lt_14032004.pdf Summary Judgment] in LizardTech v Earth Resource Mapping Internet buzz suggested the patent covered the JPEG 2000 image compression format but the additional feature of the valid claims appears not to be a JPEG 2000 requirement.[http://www.lizardtech.com/press/news.php?item=11-01-2004 LizardTech press release, 1 November 2004] and [http://www.ermapper.com/company/news_view.aspx?PRESS_RELEASE_ID=356 ERM press release, 2 November 2004]

class=wikitable ! width="15%" | Number ! width="65%" | Comments ! width="10%" | Other family members ! width="10%" | Earliest filing - Grant dates

valign="top" | {{Cite patent|country=US|number=6041345}} (Main article: - ) | A Microsoft patent covering a method of encapsulating multiple streams of data into a data stream that is implemented in the Advanced Systems Format. The author of the open source video capture tool, VirtualDub, which is licensed under GPL alleged that an employee of Microsoft requested that he remove support for ASF from his program. The author has said that he does not have the money to pay for a license under the patent and that he would not take a free license that placed restrictions on future uses of his code in violation of GPL.{{Cite web |url=http://www.advogato.org/article/101.html |title=Advogato: Microsoft patents ASF media file format, stops reverse engineering |access-date=2007-02-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120204062942/http://www.advogato.org/article/101.html |archive-date=2012-02-04 |url-status=dead }} | - | 1996-03-08 {{En dash}} 2000-03-21

class=wikitable ! width="15%" | Number ! width="65%" | Comments ! width="10%" | Other family members ! width="10%" | Earliest filing - Grant dates

valign="top" | {{Cite patent|country=US|number=4405829}} (Main article: RSA ) | A software patent describing the ground-breaking RSA algorithm for public-key cryptography, still used for secure communications today.[http://www.msri.org/people/members/sara/articles/rsa.pdf SIAM News, Volume 36, Number 5, June 2003], "Still Guarding Secrets after Years of Attacks, RSA Earns Accolades for its Founders", by Sara Robinson | - | 1977-12-14 {{En dash}} 1983-09-20

• {{Cite patent|country=EP|number=0625760}} (Main article: Menashe v. William Hill)

:A patent for a gaming system that has particular importance regarding Internet usage. A server running the game was located outside the UK but could be used within the UK. The Court of Appeal of England and Wales judged that the patent was being infringed by virtue of the sale of CDs in the UK containing software intended to put the invention into effect in the UK.

• {{Cite patent|country=US|number=6137498}} also granted as {{Cite patent|country=EP|number=0852363}} - (Main article: Photographic mosaic)

: Robert Silver's patent on his photographic mosaicing technique. The UK part of the European patent is currently undergoing revocation proceedings, the results of which may be important in comparing the practice of the UK Patent Office with that of the European Patent Office.[http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-find/p-find-number.htm The UK Patents Status Enquiry] for EP0852363 provides current status information on the patent.

• {{Cite patent|country=US|number=6384822}} (Main article: Shadow volume)

: A patent covering the technique commonly known as Carmack's Reverse

class=wikitable ! width="15%" | Number ! width="65%" | Comments ! width="10%" | Other family members ! width="10%" | Earliest filing - Grant dates

valign="top" | {{Cite patent|country=US|number=5838906}} (Main article: - ) | Eolas successfully sued Microsoft for $521 million for the "browser plugin patent".[http://www.eolas.com/zmapress.htm Press release] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061205050434/http://eolas.com/zmapress.htm |date=2006-12-05 }} from Eolas | - | 1994-10-17 {{En dash}} 1998-11-17

valign="top" | {{Cite patent|country=US|number=4873662}} (Main article: - ) | British Telecom believed that this patent might cover web hyperlinks and tried enforcing it against Prodigy as a test case in British Telecommunications plc v. Prodigy. After costly litigation, a court found for Prodigy, ruling that British Telecom's patent did not actually cover web hyperlinks.[http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/02-07733.PDF Summary Judgement] ruling that no jury could find that Prodigy infringes the Sargent patent, whether directly or contributorily, either as part of the Internet or on its Web server viewed separate and apart from the Internet. | - | 1976-07-20 {{En dash}} 1989-10-10

valign="top" | {{Cite patent|country=US|number=6192407}} (Main article: - ) | This patent is one of several owned Tumbleweed Communications and relates to a document delivery system that generates a unique URL for intended recipients of a document in order to deliver that document. Tumbleweed has licensed this and related patents in their patent portfolio to 29 companies.{{Cite web|url=https://www.axway.com/en/products/managed-file-transfer/securetransport|title=MFT Gateway|website=Axway Corporate}} They have also filed several patent infringement lawsuits.{{Cite web|url=http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/telecommunications/263360-1.html|title="Tumbleweed brings patent infringement case against Yahoo!" Internet Business News, Sept 13 2002}} All of the suits have been settled but full details of the settlements, including, in some cases, whether or not any license fees have been paid, have not been made available. Overall, however, Tumbleweed earns about 10% of its revenue from patent licensing and 90% of its revenue from selling products and services. | - | 1996-10-24 {{En dash}} 2001-02-20

• {{Cite patent|country=US|number=5983205}} - (Main article: Adjusted winner procedure)

:An algorithm to divide n divisible goods between two parties as fairly as possible.

• {{Cite patent|country=US|number=6269361}} (Main article: Yahoo! Search Marketing)

: A patent relating to pay-per-click Internet search engine advertising. Originally filed by Goto.com, Inc. (renamed Overture Services, Inc.), Google and FindWhat were both sued for infringement prior to Overture's acquisition by Yahoo!

• {{Cite patent|country=US|number=7116963}}

:Washington Research Foundation asserted this patent in December 2006 against Matsushita (owners of the Panasonic brand), Nokia and Samsung. Granted in October 2006 (originating from a 1996 filing) it relates to dynamically varying the passband bandwidth of a tuner. If the claims had been upheld, CSR plc (previously known as Cambridge Silicon Radio), who supply the defendants with Bluetooth chips, could have lost market share to Broadcom who already had a license under the patent.{{Cite web

|url=http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2007/01/bluetooth-battle-looms.html

|publisher=IPKat

|title=Bluetooth battle looms

|date=2007-01-04

|accessdate=2007-01-04}}

• {{Cite patent|country=US|number=4744028}}

: One of three patents granted in respect of Karmarkar's algorithm, which relates to linear programming problems.[https://web.archive.org/web/20040719014831/http://www.apic.jiii.or.jp/p_f/text/text/2-05.pdf Introduction to Software Patents] published by the Japan Patent Office - see page 47 for discussion of Karmarkar's algorithm Claim 1 of this patent suggests the algorithm should be applied to the allocation of telecommunication transmission facilities among subscribers.

• {{Cite patent|country=US|number=6275213}} and {{Cite patent|country=US|number=6424333}} related to {{Cite patent|country=EP|number=0864145|status=application}}

: Immersion Corporation sued Sony under these US patents in 2002. They relate to force-feedback technology such as that used in PlayStation 2 DualShock controllers. Sony lost the case and Immersion were awarded $90.7 million, an injunction (stayed pending appeal), and a compulsory license.{{Cite web |url=http://immr.client.shareholder.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=195343 |title=Immersion Corporation Reports First Quarter 2006 Financial Results |access-date=2007-01-10 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061213103556/http://immr.client.shareholder.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=195343 |archive-date=2006-12-13 |url-status=dead }} The claims of the related European patent application require the device to be attached to a body part and were, in any event, refused by the examining division of the European Patent Office for lacking an inventive step.{{EPO Register|appno=96944744|patno=0864145}}

• {{Cite patent|country=EP|number=0394160}}
• {{Cite patent|country=US|number=5301348}}

:The patent relates to a progress bar. Filed in 1989, it was highlighted in 2005 by Richard Stallman in New ScientistRichard Stallman, [https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524850.300-patents-by-stealth.html Patents by stealth], New Scientist, February 5, 2005, issue 2485, page 28. and The GuardianRichard Stallman, [http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,,1510566,00.html Patent absurdity], The Guardian, June 20, 2005 as an example of a software patent granted by the European Patent Office, that would impede software development and would be dangerous. The claims as granted describe a process of breaking down a task to be performed by a computer into a number of equal task units and updating a display each time a unit is completed and therefore does not cover progress bars which operate in different ways.

• {{Cite patent|country=US|number=5241671}}

: Owned at various times by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. and Compton's NewMedia, Inc. this patent was granted in August 1993. Just a few months later, in November 1993, Compton's announced that "Everything that is now multimedia and computer-based utilizes this invention" and tried to use the patent to ensure that everyone licensed their software.[http://www.gordoni.com/software-patents/articles/compton.html Key Patent To Shake Multimedia Industry], San Francisco Chronicle, November 15, 1993 Although a cursory review of the granted claims showed this statement to be mere hyperbole, there was nonetheless an outcry from the industry and the patent was revoked following re-examination.[http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/199403/msg00104.html Patent Office Reject Compton's NewMedia Patent] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061022230429/http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/199403/msg00104.html |date=2006-10-22 }}, March 24, 1994

• {{Cite patent|country=US|number=5842213}} and {{Cite patent|country=US|number=6393426}}

: Patents owned by Scientigo and claimed by them to cover the markup language XML, a notion rejected by patent attorneys and other commentators including Microsoft.[https://archive.today/20120712154124/http://news.com.com/Small+company+makes+big+claims+on+XML+patents/2100-1014_3-5905949.html Small company makes big claims on XML patents], Martin LaMonica, CNET News.com, October 21, 2005

• {{Cite patent|country=US|number=2006015812|status=application}} {{En dash}} Emoticon keyboard button patent application.
• {{Cite patent|country=EP|number=1784745|status=application}}

:Early in 2006, rumours circulated on the Internet that Cingular Wireless had patented the emoticon and, in particular, had patented the concept of using emoticons on mobile phones.{{Cite web

|url=http://www.cellular-news.com/story/15792.php

|title=Cingular Patenting the Emoticon :(

|publisher=Cellular-news

|accessdate=2007-04-21}} This resulted in a great deal of anger directed at the US Patent Office that such patents should never have been granted.{{Cite web

|url=http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/26/1815259

|title=Cingular Patents the Emoticon?

|date=26 January 2006

|publisher=Slashdot

|accessdate=2007-04-21}} Ultimately, it was pointed out that it was only a published patent application, not a granted patent, and that the claims of the patent application actually related to a mobile phone with a dedicated button for inserting emoticons.{{Cite web

|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/27/cingular_smiley_mail

|title=Cingular emoticon grab not so serious :-) say experts

|publisher=The Register

|accessdate=2007-04-21}}

:This patent application is currently being examined by the US patent office. All of the originally filed claims were rejected on 22 February 2007 as being known or obvious, although the rejection was not final.[http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair The USPTO "Public PAIR" system] provides current status information for this US application under publication number "2006-0015812". Examination of the corresponding European patent application also suggested that the claims lacked an inventive step, and the application lapsed in 2010.{{EPO Register|appno=05772941|patno=1784745}}

• {{Cite patent|country=US|number=D599372}}

:This design patent was granted to Google on 1 September 2009 for the simple and clean appearance of their homepage from five years earlier.{{cite news| url=http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/patently_google_v3bGGmxgNrvP5lW2elOdSJ | work=New York Post | title=Patently Google | first=Paul | last=Tharp | date=2009-09-03}} Referred to in the media as a patent, it received criticism for not being as original as Google's web search technology and was held up as evidence that the US patent system was broken.{{cite web |url=http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/09/03/uspto-neglects-to-hit-the-obvious-button-on-googles-newest-pa/ |title=USPTO neglects to hit the "obvious" button on Google's newest patent |website=www.downloadsquad.com |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090905133816/http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/09/03/uspto-neglects-to-hit-the-obvious-button-on-googles-newest-pa/ |archive-date=2009-09-05}} The New York Post said that Google now had the right to sue anyone who used a similarly no-frills website. However, a "design patent" is not the same as a "patent" (sometimes referred to as a "utility patent") since it provides only limited protection for ornamental appearance.{{Cite web|url=https://patentlyo.com/patent/2009/09/googles-patent-on-its-googlecom-home-page.html|title=Googleâs Patent on its GOOGLE.COM Home Page|website=Patently-O}} Design patents are typically hard to infringe{{cite web| url = https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/03/google_patents_its_home_page/| title = Google patents (2004) home page • The Register| website = The Register}} and even Google's own homepage at the time the design patent was granted was almost certainly different enough from the design patent that it did not infringe it.

{{reflist|30em}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:List Of Software Patents}}

Category:Software patent law

Software

Software patents