How to Use This Chart Definitions of Terms

Copyright Footnotes

1.	Albania	In May 2005, the Council of Ministers entered into force Law No. 9380, a new copyright statute, which expressly extends copyright protection to software.
2.	Armenia	Computer software is expressly protected under the Copyright Law of 2000.
3.	Belize	Computer software is expressly protected under the Copyright Act (CAP. 252 of the Substantive Laws of Belize) 2000.
4.	Bosnia & Herzegovina	Computer software is protected under the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, which became effective on October 24, 2002.
5.	Brunei Darussalam	The Emergency (Copyright) Order 1999, enacted on May 1, 2000, expressly protects computer software.
6.	Czech Republic	Computer software is expressly protected under Law No. 121/2000 Coll. of April 7, 2000 on Copyright, Rights Related to Copyright and on the Amendment of Certain Laws (Copyright Act).
7.	Dominican Republic	On October 24, 2000, a new copyright law became effective to, among other things, the new law makes the Dominican Republic TRIPS-compliant in areas such as express protection of computer software as a literary work, protection for databases and a minimum term of protection.
8.	Egypt	Computer software is expressly protected under the Intellectual Property Rights Code, effective June 3, 2002.
9.	Kuwait	Computer software is expressly protected under the Decree Law No. 64/1999 Relating to Intellectual Property Rights, which became effective on February 9, 2000.
10.	Lithuania	Computer software is expressly protected under the Law on Copyright and Related Rights No. VIII-1185, May 1999, as amended by Law No. VIII-1886 of July 2000 and Law No. IX-1355 of March 2003.
11.	Luxembourg	Computer software is protected under the Law on Copyright, Related Rights and Databases of April 18, 2001, as amended by the Law of April 18, 2004, effective May 3, 2004.
12.	Macedonia	Computer software is expressly protected under the Law on Copyright and Related Rights No. 47/96, September 1996 and No. 3/98, January 1998.
13.	Moldova	Computer software is expressly protected under the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, which became effective on May 3, 1995.
14.	Montenegro	The Law on Copyright and Related Rights was entered into force on January 1, 2005 when the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro was in existence. This law expressly protects computer programs as works of authorship. Montenegro became a sovereign state on June 3, 2006, when the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro was dissolved. According to reports, the intellectual property laws of the former State Union of Serbia and Montenegro remain valid in Montenegro until new Montenegrian laws are adopted. Thus, intellectual property owners may enforce existing intellectual property rights obtained in the former State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. However, until new intellectual property laws are adopted in Montenegro, there is no mechanisim for intellectual property owners to file applications for or register their intellectual property rights in Montenegro.
15.	Oman	Computer software is protected under the "Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighboring Rights" (Law No. 37/2000), which came into force on May 21, 2000.
16.	Qatar	Computer software is protected under the Qatar Copyright Law, which came into force on October 3, 2002.
17.	Saudi Arabia	A new Saudi Arabia Copyright Law, which expressly protects computer software, became effective on March 14, 2004.
18.	*Serbia	The Law on Copyright and Related Rights was entered into force on January 1, 2005 when the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro was in existence. This law expressly protects computer programs as works of authorship. When the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro was dissolved on June 3, 2006, the law was carried over by the Republic of Serbia as the legal successor of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. Thus, all intellectual property rights previously filed or registered in the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro continue to be valid in the Republic of Serbia.
19.	United Arab Emirates	In 2002, the United Arab Emirates enacted a Copyright Law, Federal Law No. 7 of 2002. The law, which repealed the previous law, includes computer programs as a protected category of works.
20.	Vietnam	Under the Bilateral Copyright Agreement between the United States and Vietnam, effective December 23, 1998, Vietnam agreed to provide copyright protection, on a national treatment basis, to works (including computer software) of U.S. authors that are first published in either country.

back to top

Patent Footnotes

a.	European Patent Convention:	Subject matter protection is available based on the EPO's application of the technical effects doctrine if an application is filed in the EPO rather than in the individual member country. Vicom Systems Applications, T208/84, 2 EPOR 74, EPO Appeal Board (1987).
b.	Argentina:	A computer program, as such, is not patentable subject matter. A leading Argentine case states that if a process is patentable in itself, the use of a computer means in its performance does not affect its patentability. Thus, when software is described as a means and the device is also claimed, that invention is patentable. IBM v. La Nacion Argentina s/Deregatoria, September 1974).
c.	Eurasian Patent Convention:	As in the European Patent Convention, the provisions of the Eurasian Patent Convention do not recognize algorithms and computer programs, as such, as patentable subject matter. However, because the European Patent Organization assisted in the preparation of the Eurasian Patent Convention, these provisions of the Eurasian Patent Convention are likely to be interpreted similarly to the corresponding provisions of the European Patent Convention. However, no case law was found that would confirm such an interpretation.
d.	Australia:	CCOM v. Jiejing, 122 ALR-417 (1994), interpreting the Australian Patent Act, as amended April 30, 1991.
e.	Belize:	Protection may be granted to a patent granted by the U.K. patent office or the EPO designating the United Kingdom.
f.	Brazil:	Inventions involving the use of computer software may be patentable provided they are of "technical character" (new and utilizable by industry). For example, if computer software is used to control a machine, a patent may be available for the machine. (Brazil Law #9279 (May 14, 1996), effective May 15, 1997).
g.	China (PRC):	Inventions involving the use of computer software may be patentable in the PRC, even if the software concerned forms the major part of the invention, as a technical solution relating to a product, process or improvement.
h.	Dominican Republic:	Provided one confirms a non-Dominican Republic software patent (e.g., by registering a U.S. patent).
i.	Hong Kong:	A June 27, 1997 patent ordinance provides protection provided that one registers a patent granted by the UK Patent Office, by the EPO designating the United Kingdom, or by the Chinese Patent Office.
j.	India:	India's Patents (Second Amendment) Act, which took effect July 11, 2002, excludes, among other things, a mathematical or business method, a computer program per se and algorithms from patentability. Many commentators believe that the inclusion of the per se language after computer program brings India's patent law more in line with the technical effects doctrine promulgated by the EPO.
k.	Montenegro:	The Patent Law was entered into force on July 2, 2004 when the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro was in existence. Implementation of computer software in technical processes was patentable under the Patent Law. Montenegro became a sovereign state on June 3, 2006, when the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro was dissolved. According to reports, the intellectual property laws of the former State Union of Serbia and Montenegro remain valid in Montenegro until new Montenegrian laws are adopted. Thus, intellectual property owners may enforce existing intellectual property rights obtained in the former State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. However, until new intellectual property laws are adopted in Montenegro, there is no mechanisim for intellectual property owners to file applications for or register their intellectual property rights in Montenegro.
l.	Norway:	Norway has reconciled its national patent law with the European Patent Convention even though it is not a member.
m.	Panama:	The Industrial Property Law that came into effect on November 15, 1996, states that patents shall not be granted for software programs per se.
n.	Philippines:	Section 22.2 of the Philippines office Manual of Substantive Procedure states: A computer program claimed by itself or as a record on a carrier, is not patentable irrespective of its content. The situation is not normally changed when the computer program is loaded into a known computer. If, however, the subject-matter as claimed makes a technical contribution to the known art, patentability should not be denied merely on the ground that a computer program is involved in its implementation.. It follows also that, where the claimed subject-matter is concerned only with the programcontrolled internal working of a known computer, the subjectmatter could be patentable if it provides a technical effect.
o.	Poland	A computer program, as such, is not patentable subect matter. However, it is uncertain whether Poland follows the technical effects doctrine.
p.	Serbia:	The Patent Law was entered into force on July 2, 2004 when the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro was in existence. Implementation of computer software in technical processes was patentable under the Patent Law. When the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro was dissolved on June 3, 2006, the law was carried over by the Republic of Serbia as the legal successor of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. Thus, all intellectual property rights previously filed or registered in the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro continue to be valid in the Republic of Serbia.
q.	Singapore:	Singapore patent regulations allow for a Singapore patent application to proceed to grant by conforming the specification of the Singapore application to that of the corresponding granted U.S. patent and using the granted U.S. patent as prima facie evidence of patentability.
r.	South Africa:	South Africa patent law prohibits the patentability of computer programs as such. It is thus believed that the patent law does not prevent the patenting of software-related inventions so long as they are claimed as methods or as a hardware adapted to perform particular functions.
r.	Thailand:	The Thai Patent Office is currently studying the issue of software patentability. However, a commentator for the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property believes that a software-related invention will be considered patentable subject matter.
x.	EPO Extension Countries:	For EPO extension countries, subject matter protection is available by filing a special request to extend an EPO patent application to the applicable extension country.

Sources Other than Direct Authority: International Intellectual Property Alliance; U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; U.S. Department of State, Office of International Information Programs; World Intellectual Property Organization; World Trade Organization.

back to top

How to Use This Chart

This chart can be used to determine if subject matter protection is currently available in a particular country for either a U.S. or foreign party's software.

The entry under "Copyright" indicates whether subject matter protection is available for software under the national copyright law of a particular country. If so, the second step is to determine if protection is available for a U.S. work in that country. To do so, look at the entry under "Memberships" to see if there is an applicable mutual membership or a bilateral agreement between the United States and that country. If there is, subject matter protection is probably available. Use the same approach to determine if protection is available for a foreign party's software in another foreign country (except that relevant bilateral agreements are not identified). For example, a Japanese author would look at the "Memberships" entries to determine if Japan and a specific country have a common convention or organization membership.

The entry under "Patent" indicates whether subject matter protection is available for software in the specified country, under either national law or supranational law, such as the European Patent Convention. Patent treaties to which the country belongs are identified under "Memberships." While a common convention membership means that national treatment will be provided, a patent application may be filed in some countries even when no common membership exists.

Local counsel should be consulted before distributing software in a particular market to confirm and update the information in this chart and to advise on the practicality of enforcement, evidentiary considerations and other protection mechanisms.

back to top

Definitions of Terms Used in This Chart

"Yes"

—

subject matter protection for software is available pursuant to legislation, and, in the case of patent only, is confirmed by significant case law precedent, or presidential decree expressly protecting software.

"Probably"

—

significant case law precedent supports subject matter protection.

"Maybe"

—

subject matter protection may exist based on, for example, a favorable lower court opinion, views of commentators or the ability to register software in the country's copyright office.

"No"

—

no substantial indication of subject matter protection for software.

"Unknown"

—

no information identified.

Convention and Organization Memberships

"B"

—

Berne Convention

"U"

—

Universal Copyright Convention

"P"

—

Paris Convention

"E"

—

European Patent Convention

"C"

—

Patent Cooperation Treaty

"A"

—

Eurasian Patent Convention

"W"

—

World Trade Organization (TRIPS)

Home Copyright Protection Trademark Protection Patent Protection TRIPS Contractual Protection U. S. Border Charts
Fenwick & West LLP Contact Info Terms of Use

The contents of this Web page are not intended, and cannot be considered, as legal advice or opinion.
©2003—2007 Fenwick & West LLP · San Francisco · Silicon Valley · California · All rights reserved.