Tag: Therefore
Patent-Eligibility of Computer-Implemented Inventions – Appeals Court Says an ‘Advance in Computer Technology’ is Required
In a unanimous decision – Commissioner of Patents v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCAFC 202 – a Full Bench of three judges (Middleton, Perram and Nicholas JJ) of the Federal Court of Australia (‘Full Court’) has reversed last year’s ruling by Justice Burley that claims directed to a so-called ‘feature game’ implemented on an electronic gaming machine (EGM) constituted a patent-eligible ‘manner of manufacture’ under Australia law. (A ‘feature game’ is a secondary, or bonus, game triggered by the occurrence of a defined event in the ‘base’ game of spinning reels.) As I explained at the time, Justice Burley applied a two step test, asking firstly whether ‘the claimed invention is for a mere scheme or business method of the type that is not the proper subject matter of a grant of letters patent’ and then – if this question is answered in the affirmative – ‘whether the computer-implemented method is one where invention lay in the computerisation of the method’ as opposed to ‘merely plugging an unpatentable scheme into a computer’. He found the claims to be patentable at the first step, because they were directed to ‘a mechanism of a particular construction’, i.e. a gaming machine.
The Full Court has rejected Justice Burley’s test, with the majority (Middleton and Perram JJ) proposing an alternative two step test (at [26]) which asks firstly whether the claimed invention is ‘a computer-implemented invention’ and then – if so – ‘can the invention claimed broadly be described as an advance in computer technology’. The majority determined that Aristocrat’s EGM, despite being claimed in terms of a combination of hardware and software components, was in substance a computer-implemented invention, and that the asserted contribution of the claimed invention ‘pertains only to the use of a computer’ and not to ‘the development or advance of computer technology’ (at [63]-[64]). As such, they concluded that the claims were not directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
The third judge of the Full Court, Nicholas J, arrived at the same ultimate conclusion, by different reasoning. He agreed with the majority that Justice Burley’s two step test was not the correct approach, because it failed to ‘engage with the Commissioner’s submission that the invention as described and claimed was in substance a mere scheme or set of rules for playing a game implemented using generic computer technology for its well-known and well-understood functions’ (at [135]). However, rather than embarking upon an inquiry as to whether Aristocrat’s claims were directed to a ‘computer-implemented invention’ he simply observed that ‘the substance of the invention, as described and claimed, resides in the game program code which embodies a computer implemented scheme or set of rules for the playing of a game’ (at [138]). He further reasoned (at [140]-[142]) that the game code does not solve any ‘technological problem’, nor does it exhibit any ‘unusual technical effect due to the way in which the computer is utilised’, and therefore that there is nothing ‘about the way in which the game code causes the EGM to operate which can be regarded as having transformed what might otherwise be regarded as purely abstract information encoded in memory into something possessing the required artificial effect.’
While the Full Court found the representative claim at issue to be unpatentable, it did not entirely foreclose the possibility that there may be patent-eligible aspects to the inventions disclosed in Aristocrat’s four innovation patents. The case has been remitted back to Justice Burley to determine any residual issues in light of the Full Court’s judgment.
There are positive and negative aspects to this decision. On the plus side, the approach taken by the majority brings some clarity to the approach to be taken in construing and assessing claims to computer-implemented inventions, which often comprise a physical apparatus defined in terms of (possibly conventional) hardware, configured via software for particular functionality. On the down side, however, the majority also relied upon the existence of ‘an advance in computer technology’ to confer patent-eligibility upon a computer-implemented invention, without providing clear guidance on what, exactly, is covered by this terminology. The decision also perpetuates an uncertainty that exists around the exact role to be played by prior art information in applying the ‘manner of manufacture’ test to assess patent-eligibility.
Read more »Introducing a New NFT Gaming Network Brute Force Fight
Similarly, in the blockchain and the crypto sector, the idea of NFT gaming has gained momentum very fast. Platforms like Axie infinity and many others have been benefiting vastly from the NFT craze in 2021. Gamers have gotten a new way of earning and maximizing incomes while gaming. Brute Force Fight is an example of a platform that aims to benefit from the NFT craze and simultaneously help users earn passive income while gaming.
Brute Force Fight defines itself as an NFT gaming network designed with a top gaming experience for players. It combines the concept of NFT gaming with Defi tokens thus is a play and earn platform.
How does the Brute Force Fight gaming network work? Please keep reading to see more about this platform and why December 2021 will be significant for them.
Brute Force Fight Game Description
Brute Force Fight combines NFT and Defi to offer an excellent experience to gamers. It uses the PvP and PvE game modes with a storyline of space exploration.
The universe was enjoying some peace until the discovery of interplanetary mining. Now, people from all over the universe, planets, and races are fighting to take control of space resources. In this game, you have to battle against other space pirates and win. The pirates may include other real-world players, AI-controlled ships, and other dangers.
In the game, players have the freedom to form federations. Federations are team-ups with other players. These federations can fight with other federations to take control of the given resources.
The concept of the Brute Force Fight gaming network is to allow players to mine resources and conquer other planets. When conquering, the teams will attack, set base, and fight other bases. Once you and your friend (federation) conquer a planet, you can continue mining.
Aside from conquering, you can also get into trade activities with other federations, bases, and nations. More so, since this is an interplanetary game, you can search for contacts with other races.
The $BFORCE Token
To power the entire network, Brute Force Fight introduced a native token, $BFORCE. $BFORCE is a BEP20 token that will help in different services within this ecosystem. Among the services include payment and exchanges.
According to their documents, they have a maximum supply of 10 million $BFORCE tokens. However, in the coming presale, they cap a total supply of 10 million tokens. The network distributes the tokens as follows;
50%, 5 million go to the community during the ICO
4 million tokens, 40% go to 3 Month lock for Game NFTs Marketplace
0.5 million tokens, 5% will be released through vesting, 1% per week for marketing
2% will help in marketing works.
2% for game development
1% for private sale airdrop
Other Features
Audit and KYC
Brute Force Fight had Solidproof audit their smart contracts to secure the player's and investors' funds. The idea of auditing contracts is to ensure they are not vulnerable to external or internal attacks. Auditors often check the code to ensure it's correct and has no errors. Hence, the contract will not be a threat to the gamers in this network.
Aside from the audit, Solidproof conducted a KYC scanning of the Brute Force Fight team. KYC, Know your customer, basically involves looking deep into the people around the project. In this case, the persons who are given a more profound look are the team members. The intention is to see whether the team members have any money fraud issues.
However, the audit and KYC report will be released once Solidproof is through with the process. The report will be available via the website and social media pages.
The BSC Base
The Brute Force Fight gaming network took its base in the Binance smart chain. But why? Ethereum, which provides smart contract support, is currently facing tons of issues, including lacking scalability.
However, BSC was developed to be the alternative for Ethereum. Hence it's scalable and has high speeds. The Brute Force Fight will therefore have an easy time expanding and serving more gamers globally. This gaming network is consequently looking into its future.
NFTs Shopping
The Brute Force Fight network also introduced an NFTs shopping in-game market. Users of this market will leverage $BFORCE native coin to buy and sell NFTs.
According to them, this online in-game marketplace will be available to gamers and everyone else.
Accordingly, the network will be airdropping NFTs to players. The trading platform will enable players to exchange the NFTs with $BFORCE tokens.
Brute Force Fight Team
The Brute Force Fight team is made up of several people, all majoring in different fields. Among the tasks worked on by the team include,
Software Engineers
Designers
Marketing Manager
Social Media Experts
However, the network has not fully displayed the names of the tea members. Hopefully, they will do so soon.
Developments Coming Soon
According to their social media pages, December will be a big month for the Brute Force Fight network. One of the significant happenings this December will be the token presale. Starting December 7th, Brute Force Fight will launch the ICO on the Unicrypt launchpad. So, ICO investors can spare December 7th to participate in this presale.
Brute Force Fight intends to sell 5 million tokens by the end of the ICO. Their target hard cap is 2000BNB. 1 BNB will be equal to 1500 $BFORCE Token during the ICO period. Maximum spending per wallet during the ICO is 3BNB, which is an equivalent of 4500 $BFORCE.
Immediately following the ICO will be the tokens listing in exchanges. The listing price is set at a little higher than the ICO price. 1BNB will be equal to 1350 $BFORCE. Aside from exchange listings, $BFORCE intends to list in analytical networks like Coingecko and Coinmarketcap this December.
In February next year, Brute Force Fight will officially launch the game for the public. Investors, gamers, and crypto enthusiasts should watch out for this gaming network. You can also join our communities on Twitter, Reddit, and Telegram to get more updates as they come.
3air Ready to Solve Telecommunications Problems in Africa with Upcoming Public Sale
3air will kick off its public sale on November 26, as seen on the presale page.
3air Token Public Sale Details
The platform is building its upcoming public sale on the successful private sale rounds, which saw numerous participants joining. Currently, users register for the public sale and are awaiting Know Your Customer (KYC) and AML verifications.
The platform will sell the token at $0.06 at the public sale, which will offer the initial and final supply of tokens in presale rounds. To enter, you will need a minimum ticket of $600, while the maximum investment opportunity stands at $49,800.
The team securely developed the token on Cardano, utilizing the blockchain's IOHK Atala Prism Identity Management solution.
The platform will dedicate 20% of the 1 billion maximum token supply to the public sale. This allocation differs from the seed sale and private rounds, which represented 1% and 11% of total supply, respectively.
3air provides a detailed breakdown of its token sales. Also, the company believes that the disclosure of the token's distribution is crucial to prevent future supply changes.
The platform reassures its user base that all token distributions run on smart contracts. Therefore, you will receive your tokens once the sale closes automatically through an app on your ADA wallet.
Unfortunately, some countries will not be able to participate in token sales. The US, North Korea, Zambia, Central African Republic, British Virgin Islands, China, Venezuela, Iran and Iraq.
Tapping into Untapped African Markets
Investors have long recognized the African continent as a region full of potential and talent. However, the current lack of broadband internet and its supporting infrastructure causes a digital divide that slows down economic growth.
African cities can grow faster and thrive with more reliable internet connectivity. However, building telecommunication lines and burying fiber network cables requires substantial investments in infrastructure. Currently, internet providers focus primarily on business districts only, and Internet connections are limited and unreliable. A report by the World Bank estimates that it would take over $100 billion of investment and 10 years to achieve widespread broadband connectivity using traditional means.
3air recognizes this need for high speed internet and aims to close the digital divide faster and at lower costs. In a simulation of market potential using Nigeria as an example, 3air estimates that the value of the Nigerian markets' untapped annual revenue for Internet services is worth $60 billion. Establishing more affordable and faster internet connectivity would therefore not only benefit local populations, but token holders as well.
3air uses all these factors as motivation to provide broad premium bandwidth in African cities to previously underserved areas. In this regard, the platform relies on a talented and experienced team of specialists in IT, blockchain, marketing, and telecommunication.
Blockchain technology is leveraged by 3air to provide a trustless, decentralized environment that maintains security and user data protection. Users will be able to create digital identities, enabling access to bankless payments, health, work and education. Internet, TV and IP Telephony subscriptions will be paid for using the 3air token. The token will also be used for bandwidth sharing, HW insurance and maintenance, rewards, referrals, staking and community governance.
Fruitful Partnerships
Besides developing on Cardano, 3air is acquiring more partnerships to drive its vision to completion. One of these strategic collaborations is with the telecom service provider K3 Telecom. The Swiss company's patented technology will develop the broadband connection for 3air using innovative wireless technology that is able to set up high speed internet connectivity in a new region in a matter of months.
Its optic grade air connectivity can provide 1Gbps internet speed and over 150 television channels. The technology, K3 last mile, is ready for the world, utilizing innovative technology, a functional business plan, and a successful proof of concept in Sierra Leone. Other 3air partnerships include collaborations with IT TIM, CV Labs Global, and iceaddis.
These business and technological joint efforts show 3air's commitment to providing Africa with better internet connectivity. Thanks to its innovative projects and ideas, individuals and businesses in African cities will finally upgrade to fast and cost-effective internet services.
Raising the Bar Has Not Reduced the Patent Acceptance Rate in Australia
Data on patent acceptances into 2021 confirms that the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (‘RtB Act’), which came into effect on 15 April 2013, has had a minimal impact on the rate of patent application acceptance in Australia – and to the extent that an effect is present, it does not run in the direction that might be expected! Here, I define ‘rate of acceptance’ as the proportion of examined applications that go on to be accepted for grant. Between 2009 and 2013, the rate at which applications subject to the former (i.e. pre-RtB) provisions were accepted rose from 69% to 72%. In comparison, the acceptance rate of post-RtB applications has stabilised at around 75% in each year between 2017 and 2021.
Some people may have anticipated that, in raising the standard of inventive step and introducing stricter requirements for enablement and support of claims, the RtB reforms would result in fewer applications being accepted. I was not one of those people, and I expect that neither were most other patent attorneys. Those of us who work on behalf of patent applicants are well-aware that, firstly, most of those applicants are seeking patent protection in other jurisdictions that have high standards of patentability, and are not wasting time and money on equivalent Australian applications for inventions that do not meet those standards. And, secondly, encountering a higher bar to acceptance does not necessarily mean abandoning the application altogether; often it may simply mean settling for a more limited scope of protection.
Perhaps more surprisingly, however, raising standards of patentability has not resulted in applicants making more rounds of amendment to their applications in order to achieve acceptance. In fact, if anything applications examined under the post-RtB provisions have been, on average, subject to fewer amendments in examination than pre-RtB applications.
Interestingly, in the transition between the two legal regimes, the earliest applications to be examined under the provisions of the RtB Act had acceptance rates in excess of 90%, while acceptance rates of the last applications to be examined under the former provisions fell to below 50%. These effects are most likely attributable to the respective applicants’ strategies in pursuing early examination of post-RtB applications, and in persisting to the bitter end with some pre-RtB applications.
Another interesting observation is that expedited examination has become increasingly popular in the years since the RtB reforms commenced, rising from just under 6% of all cases in 2014/15 to over 8% in 2020/21. In particular, expedited examination under the Global Patent Prosecution Highway (GPPH) program rose from just 2.7% of cases in 2013/14 to 5.1% in 2019/20. In fact, GPPH requests were the majority of all expedited examination requests in every post-RtB year except for the first (2013/14).
Finally, the most recent data confirms (once again) that the duration of patent prosecution (i.e. from examination request through to acceptance, in successful cases) has reduced significantly – from a median of over 600 days, to a little more than 400 days – since commencement of the RtB reforms. This has been due, in almost exactly equal parts, to the tighter time constraints imposed on applicants, and to reductions in Patent Office delays in commencing examination after a request has been filed.
Read more »Latest Intelligence
