Amazon’s one-click patent application: Canadian developments
30 December 2011 Category News, Patents, Designs & Copyright
The online world is, by now, very familiar with Amazon’s one-click method of purchasing goods. Using this technique, a single click of the mouse is all that is required to confirm a predefined delivery address and credit card details. There is no doubt that this makes online purchasing far more convenient to the user, but is the method patentable?
Patent applications were filed in many jurisdictions, dating back to the first US application made in September 1997. They have enjoyed a chequered history: the US application was granted, re-examined, amended and then granted again; the European application has not been granted, although it is still proceeding through the full range of opposition, appeal and divisional procedures. A court decision has recently been issued in respect of the Canadian application (http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/2011/2011fca328/2011fca328.html)
In Canada, the application was initially refused by the examiner on the grounds that the claimed invention was not an “art” or “process” within the meaning of those words as used in the definition of an “invention” in the Patents Act. Amazon appealed this rejection to the Federal Court. The Federal Court decision was to order re-examination of the application, but following the judge’s guidelines as to how to interpret the claimed subject matter. These guidelines effectively lead to the conclusion that the subject matter was an invention and that the Commissioner of Patents should therefore grant the patent. The Commissioner of Patents, in turn, appealed this decision.
The Federal Court of Appeal has now reached its decision, which is intermediate between the two earlier decisions. The application should be re-examined, but following different guidelines, as set out by the Court of Appeal. It is yet to be seen what the result of re-examination will be. As the judgment states: “I am unable to discern from the record what the Commissioner would have concluded about the patentability of the claims in issue based on the correct principles”.
