[Fsfe-uk] Judgment in the patent dispute of the "Bromcom" case

[Ralph Janke]

Judge David Young QC has ruled in the "Bromcom" case, Secretary of State 
for Education and Skills v Frontline Technology Ltd  [2004] All ER (D) 
170 (Jun).

According to the judgment two claims were deemed invalid on reasons of 
prior art were lacking any inventive step. However the third claim was 
upheld.

Interestingly both, Forntline Technology Ltd  
(http://www.frontline-technology.com/) and the DFES 
(http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/tools/ims/patent/) seem to 
claim victory regarding this judgment.

I am currently myself trying to analyse the concequences of the 
judgment. In a first view it seems to me that the general usage of 
software principles seem to have been freed from the patent on grounds 
of prior art and lack of any inventive step. The claim that was upheld 
is centered on the principle of the wireless transfer protocol used.

As I understand it currently, this could mean that any derivation of the 
very detailed configuration of wireless links will therefore not fall 
under the patent anymore (i.e. just the lack of using a RS-485 interface 
to the data-server, the way of scheduling multiple radio-links etc.).

One of the interesting points in the judgment seems to be the way the 
judge decided prior art. The third claim was not ruled invlaid because 
the judge believes a "IT educationalist" would have not automatically 
come to the same conclusion in building a wireless network at the time 
of the patent filing. I am a little astonished by the fact that the 
judge defined the group of people who should have been able to use 
obvious steps was kept very small as people working at a school, but he 
seemed to have excluded RF and IT experts in the field of networking. I 
have to do some more research in the prior cases the judge cited around 
this issue.

Anyhow, just wanted to give a short summary...

Ralph Janke