Townsend, Re Patents Act 1977

“Presentation of information” in section 1(2)(d) of the Patents Act 1977 includes the provision or conveying of information, not merely the manner in which information is expressed. An additional word, picture, colour or other indicium on an article may therefore fall within the exclusion where its function is to communicate information. The exclusion must be construed in the context of the other exclusions in section 1(2). Where the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, secondary materials such as parliamentary statements, treaty provisions and foreign-language texts do not require consideration.

Stephen Townsend appealed against the Deputy Director’s decision of 1 September 2003, which upheld the examiner’s refusal of patent application GB0301172.3 under sections 1(2)(d) and 18(3) of the Patents Act 1977. The application concerned an advent calendar whose doors carried additional indicia identifying the intended user. The central issue was whether “presentation of information” meant only the expression or form of information, rather than the provision of information itself. The appeal was determined on written submissions without an oral hearing.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Deputy Director’s decision was correct.
2. Section 1(2)(d) of the Patents Act 1977 excludes subject matter consisting of the presentation of information “as such”. The natural and primary meaning of “presentation of information” encompasses providing or conveying information.
3. Claim 1 required at least one advent-calendar door to bear an additional indicium. That indicium could be a word, picture, colour, texture or other feature. Its function was to provide information, for example identifying the intended user, and the claim was therefore excluded from patentability.
4. The provision had to be construed in context with the other exclusions in section 1(2). The reasoning of the Court of Appeal in Fujitsu’s Application [1997] RPC 219 supported the understanding that giving instructions or conveying information, as such, is not patentable.
5. Arguments based on Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and the French and German texts of the European Patent Convention did not require consideration because the statutory language was unambiguous.
6. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

• High Court (Patents Court): The appeal from the Deputy Director’s decision dated 1 September 2003 was dismissed under The Patents Act 1977, with no order as to costs.