| 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.
|
| 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. As to the patentability of computer related
inventions, 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: |
Inventions involving the use of a computer program
may be patentable, even if the invention is embodied
principally or exclusively as a computer program. 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. |
Canada: |
Software expressed merely as lines of code or a data
model is considered to be merely a mathematical algorithm
and as such not patentable. Computer-implemented
inventions may be patentable.
|
| h. |
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.
|
| i. |
Dominican Republic: |
Provided one confirms a non-Dominican
Republic software patent (e.g., by registering a U.S. patent).
|
| j. |
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.
|
| k. |
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. Softwarerelated
inventions may be patentable (a claim covering
hardware implementations and software may be acceptable,
and a software claim in the form of means plus function claim
may be accepted).
|
| l. |
Japan: |
Computer programmes are patentable as a product
under the 2002 amendment of the Patent Law. The term
‘Programme' means an expression of combined instructions
given to a computer so as to make it function and obtain a
certain result.
|
| m. |
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.
|
| n. |
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.
|
| o. |
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
program-controlled internal working of a known computer, the
subject-matter could be patentable if it provides a technical
effect."
|
| p. |
Poland: |
A computer program, as such, is not patentable
subject matter. It is uncertain whether Poland follows the
technical effects doctrine.
|
| q. |
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.
|
| r. |
Singapore: |
Since the coming into force, on January 1, 1996, of
the Patents (Amendment) Act 1995, compute programs are no
longer explicitly excluded from patentability. In theory, it can
be assumed that computer programs might be patentable,
provided that the requirements of novelty, inventive step, and
industrial applicability are met. It remains to be seen how the
new situation will be interpreted by the Registry of Patents
and by the court.
|
| s. |
South Africa: |
South Africa patent law prohibits the
patentability of computer programs as such. However, the
use of a computer involving a program may be patentable.
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 hardware adapted to perform
particular functions.
|
| t. |
Spain: |
Computer programs as such are explicitly excluded
from patentability. However, computer-related inventions
may be patentable provided they lead to a sufficient technical
result and the requirements of novelty, inventive step, and
applicability in the industry are met.
|
| u. |
Switzerland: |
Computer programs as such are unpatentable.
However, method claims containing computer program
features are acceptable if they also include other, technical,
features that are intrinsically associated with the program
claimed and are directly linked to the solution of the technical
problem.
|
| v. |
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.
|
| w. |
United States: |
The use or application of mathematical
equations or algorithms to otherwise patentable subject
matter may be patentable. A software-based invention may
be patentable if it produces a useful, concrete, and tangible
result.
|
| 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.
|
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.
