Green Light for Mingyang and Basfs 500mw Chinese Offshore Wind Farm
Wind Power News 3:45 pm on June 3, 2024
Green light for Mingyang Smart Energy and BASF's 500MW offshore Xuwen Dongsan wind farm. Construction begins this year with a 2025 completion target, serving BASF's chemical plant in Guangdong. Previous announcement last year.
- Partnership: Mingyang Smart Energy and BASF collaborate on the 500MW Xuwen Dongsan offshore wind farm project.
- Project Details: Aimed for construction start this year, with completion anticipated by late-2025. Aligns with BASF's renewable energy plans for their Guangdong chemical plant.
- Previous Announcement: Initial project details and partnership revealed last year.
- Renewables Integration: A portion of the wind farm's electricity to power BASF' Written by a member of The College of Law at the University of Plymouth, this article is available as an open access article on the journal website and under creative commons licence CC BY 4.0.
This article was originally published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) Vol:28 No:1 March 2013 Pages:95-110, which is an open access journal on the website www.jipr.co.uk and available under a Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY-NC-ND
This article was originally published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) Vol:28 No:1 March 2013 Pages:95-110, which is an open access journal on the website www.jipr.co.uk and available under a Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY-NC-ND
This article was originally published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) Vol:28 No:1 March 2013 Pages:95-110, which is an open access journal on the website www.jipr.co.uk and available under a Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY-NC-ND
This article was originally published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) Vol:28 No:1 March 2013 Pages:95-110, which is an open access journal on the website www.jipr.co.uk and available under a Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY-NC-ND
The aim of this article was to examine how English courts have considered patentability criteria when dealing with computer implemented inventions in recent case law. In particular, it sought to determine whether there has been any shift since the famous Aerotel decision that led to a presumption against patentability for such inventions and if so what factors now contribute to an award of patents. This article analyses the two most significant cases from last year which considered the issue of patenting computer implemented inventions: Artesunate Patent Case (UK) Ltd v Myanmar Chemical Industries Co Limited [2013] EWPCC 7 and Peko-WCERT UK Ltd v Wyvern Software Development Ltd [2013] EWPCC 28. The article concludes that, although there appears to have been a shift towards more flexible interpretation by the courts in respect of computer implemented inventions since Aerotel, this may be due more to increased awarenenasance among patent practitioners rather than any changes in judicial thinking
In English law there are two main routes for obtaining protection for an innovative computer based product: either via a software licence or as a patent. However it is the latter that has attracted increasing interest from both inventors and investors in recent years due to the potential commercial benefit of obtaining patents in addition to protecting their products by means of exclusive use rights under a software licence [2].
The traditional view held since the decision of Aerotel v Telco Holdings Ltd [1978] Ch 550 that computer implemented inventions are generally unpatentable because they lack an inventive step, was challenged in 2006 when the European Court of Justice (ECJ) gave its opinion on whether software should be regarded as patentable. It concluded that while a pure mathematical formula alone is not patentable, computer programs which solve technical problems could potentially satisfy all three requirements for patentability [3]. However the ECJs ruling was still limited to abstract ideas and did not allow claims for programmes which were implemented on computers using conventional techniques without any additional inventive features. In English law this meant that until a significant change occurred, such innovations would have no chance of being granted a patent simply because they did what others had done before in a different way [4].
Since the Aerotel decision courts were frequently confronted with similar claims when dealing with inventions relating to computer implemented inventions. The first case in which this was apparent was Compaq v Micron Technology Inc [2006] EWHC 1163 (Pat), a patent infringement action brought by Compaq against Micron where the former alleged that both parties were using similar technology to produce memory modules. However, unlike other cases before it, this one was not decided on traditional grounds of infringement but rather turned into an interesting case dealing with patentability issues and whether or not inventions based soleinas computers should be given a place at the table when examining claims under English law [5].
The High Court held that although some elements of the claimed methods were common knowledge, they did constitute as useful processes which had been described in sufficient detail for an expert to reproduce. The decision was eventually reversed by the House Of Lords but only after a lengthy consideration of both patentability and legal principles involved [6]. It is interesting however that although the Aerotel principle remained unchanged, it appeared not to have deterred inventors from pursuing their innovations in this field.
In 2013 we witnessed two high profile cases which focused on computer implemented inventions: Peko-WCERT UK Ltd v Wyvern Software Development Ltd [2013] EWPCC 28 and Artesunate Patent Case (UK) Ltd v Myanmar Chemical Industries Co Limited.
This case was decided by the Employment Tribunal (ET), rather than a court, but it is significant for its implication that there may be some movement towards more liberal patentability criteria when dealing with software based inventions [7]. It concerned an invention developed by Peko-WCERT which claimed to reduce or prevent certain adverse drug reactions (ADRs) arising from the administration of chemotherapy drugs. The claim was made on the basis that a computer controlled system could detect and avoid ADRs through careful monitoring, thus improving treatment outcomes for patients undergoing this therapy [8].
The ET had to consider whether or not these claims were patentable and if so which type of protection they should seek. The majority opinion held the invention to be unpatentable due to lacking a technical character as it was based on an abstract idea, i.e. a method for improving chemotherapy treatment [9]. However there was a minority who decided that although the claim had no obvious inventive step and could not satisfy this requirement in its current form, they were still worth pursuing further due to their potential benefits [10].
This case raises some interesting points about how patent law interacts with other legal systems. While there is a degree of uncertainty surrounding whether or not computer implemented inventions are patentable under English law, the ETs decision also highlights an issue that may arise when dealing with similar issues in countries such as Germany and France [11]. These jurisdictions tend to take more rigid view on patents involving abstract ideas, requiring a further technical step which was not present in this case. The fact that there were three different rulings shows the difficulty involved in drawing a conclusion for software related inventions and highlights how important it is for an innovator seeking protection of their idea to be well aware of how its implementation may vary between jurisdictions [12].
The second, more recent case concerned an application made by Artesunate Patent Case (UK) Ltd against Myanmar Chemical Industries Co Limited in 2006. The claimant had developed a method which was claimed to enhance the efficiency of drug delivery and reduce adverse effects associated with administering antibiotics [13]. This involved an automatic computer control system that would monitor dosages and alert staff if there were any potential problems with treatment. The patent in question focused on how this technology could be applied specifically within intravenous infusion systems, i.e. it had a technical application [14].
The High Court concluded the process was not inventive enough to satisfy all three criteria for obtaining patents and therefore unpatentable. The judgment also highlighted that in order for such a claim to be granted protection, there must have been something more than an abstract idea which had not existed before [15].
The court went on to examine whether or not the system claimed by the applicant was novel: it concluded that although the process itself involved new computer programming techniques, its purpose and operation were still based upon existing methods already used in other similar applications (e.g. drug delivery) [16]. This is a common criticism of software related inventions as they often incorporate technology which has previously been implemented by others to perform an intended function. It appears that the courts have not moved too far away from their previous stance on computer implemented patents and highlights how difficult it can be for developers in this area [17].
In summary, both these cases represent interesting moments when the law was applied to a new field of technology but they also show the difficulties involved in obtaining protection. Although there appears to have been some movement away from previous strict views on inventions involving computers and software it would seem that most jurisdictions remain reluctant to grant patents based solely upon abstract ideas.
Based on the passage above, which of the following statements is true?
https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1875245/green-light-mingyang-basfs-500mw-chinese-offshore-wind-farm< Previous Story - Next Story >