UK: Application Of The Aerotel/Macrossan Test By The High Court

Last Updated: 2 April 2007
Article by Nick Beckett and Tom Scourfield


In the first application of the 4-step test to determine patentability following Aerotel/Macrossan, the High Court upheld the decisions of the Patent Office by rejecting two applications. The High Court reached its decision on the basis that the contribution in one of the applications was deemed to be no more than an advance in a computer program and had no technical effect, while the other application was deemed in essence to be a business method with no technical effect. This decision is useful for its practical application of the Aerotel/Macrossan test, particularly because it addresses the requirement in the 4th step that the contribution must be technical.

For full analysis and commentary on the High Court’s decision in Re Cappellini and Re Bloomberg LP please see below:

Full Article

The Aerotel/Macrossan Test

Article 52(1) of the European Patent Convention ("EPC") and section 1(2) of the Patents Act 1977 provide, among others, that European patents will be granted for inventions which are new and which involve an inventive step. However, Article 52(2)(c) specifies that "schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers" are not to be regarded as "inventions" within the meaning of Article 52(1).

Article 52(3) of the EPC provides that the provisions of Article 52(2) "shall exclude patentability of the subject matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such".

The Court of Appeal in Aerotel Limited v Telco Holdings Limited & Ors; Neil William Macrossan ("Aerotel/Macrossan") set out a 4-step test to be applied when dealing with the exceptions in section 1(2) of the Act:

  1. properly construe the claim (i.e. decide what the monopoly is);
  2. identify the actual contribution (in substance, not form);
  3. ask whether it falls solely within the excluded subject matter; and
  4. check whether the actual or alleged contribution is actually technical in nature.

In an unprecedented request, the Court of Appeal also requested the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal to consider a number of questions relating to the correct approach to determining whether a particular invention should be excluded from patentability under Article 52 of the EPC.

Cappellini’s Application

Mr Cappellini ("Cappellini") applied to the UK Patent Office for a patent for a new method of determining the delivery route for a package by a network of carriers. The Hearing Officer rejected the application on the grounds that the application consisted of "methods for performing mental acts, doing business or programs for computers as such" and therefore fell within one of the exclusions from patentability under section 1(2) of the Act.

Bloomberg’s Application

An application made by Bloomberg LP ("Bloomberg") to the UK Patent Office for a method of treating data to match the requirements of a particular end-user was also rejected on the basis that it fell wholly within the meaning of computer program in section 1(2)(c) of the Act and therefore was not patentable.

In each case, the party appealed the rejection of their application in the High Court. Pumfrey J considered that as both appeals raised similar legal issues, he would deliver a single judgment in respect of those issues.

Inventions Not Patentable

Pumfrey J applied the 4-step test in Aerotel/Macrossan to determine the patentability of both patent applications.

In doing so, he noted that the Aerotel/Macrossan decision provided an important gloss to the equally binding Court of Appeal decision in Fujitsu. While the decisions in Aerotel/Macrossan and Fujitsu apply the same tests, they do so in a different order. In contrast to Aerotel/Macrossan, Fujitsu asks first, whether there is a technical contribution and then goes on to stipulate that a contribution consisting solely of exclusive matter will not count as a technical contribution. Adding his own comments on the 4th step of the Aerotel/Macrossan test, and confirming his decision in’s Application, Pumfrey J stated that in the case of computer programs, a technical effect over and above that to be expected from the mere loading of a program into a computer was required.

In considering the "mental act" exclusion under the Act, Pumfrey J noted the narrower interpretation of the Court of Appeal in Aerotel/Macrossan than in Fujitsu. Confirming his decision in Halliburton v Smith, Pumfrey J considered that where the method was capable of being performed mentally by a human being, and complete when the method terminates, this would be a scheme for performing a mental act under section 1(2)(c) of the Act. He also highlighted the importance of ensuring that an invention produces a physical or real world effect and construing the claimed invention accordingly. By "tethering" the claimed invention in this way, an otherwise non-patentable invention could be saved. This would be particularly relevant for methods for performing a mental act, business methods and computer programs.

For the "business methods" exclusion under the Act, Pumfrey J followed the Court of Appeal decision in Aerotel/Macrossan in concluding that to determine whether a business method was excluded from patentability under the Act, it was necessary to consider what the claimed invention was as a matter of substance. It followed that a claim for a programmed computer which performed a business method would fall within the excluded subject matter under the Act.


Applying the 4-step test, Pumfrey J upheld the Hearing Officer’s decision that Bloomberg’s application was for a computer program as such and dismissed Bloomberg’s appeal.

Pumfrey J identified the contribution of the application as being the concept of matching data to an end-user’s requirements prior to transmission to that end-user. Further, he rejected the suggestion that the invention improved interoperability between items of hardware. Bloomberg’s application did not contain any relevant hardware limitation and the invention did not match the format of the data to a feature of an item of hardware but rather it simply formatted data to enable it to work with particular software.

Pumfrey J also found that it was not possible to identify a technical effect for the purposes of the 4th step. Unlike the RIM case, where the application concerning the server-side treatment of data to be transmitted was limited to certain systems and computers, there were no limitations in Bloomberg’s application and no relevant technical effect.


Pumfrey J also dismissed Cappellini’s appeal.

Cappellini’s invention was a new method for planning delivery routes for a package using a network of carriers. In considering the 4-steps in the Aerotel/Macrossan decision, Pumfrey J identified the relevant contribution in this case as being that the method worked out meeting places in the network where exchange of packages between carriers could take place. However, in assessing Cappellinni’s contribution, Pumfrey J could find no evidence of a physical effect which did constitute a business method. Finally, there was nothing technical in Cappellini’s contribution; it was merely a routing method for moving vehicles and their cargos.

It followed that the method fell within the excluded subject matter under the Act, so was not patentable.


The decision of the High Court should be welcomed as being the first to apply the 4-step test in Aerotel/Macrossan. Importantly, Pumfrey J addressed the 4th step in this test, namely, the requirement that the contribution is technical. However, as the decisions in Aerotel/Macrossan and Fujitsu are of equal precedence, it is by no means certain that Aerotel/Macrossan will be followed in preference to Fujitsu in the future.

This case certainly provides more clarity as to the precise scope of the exclusions to patentability Article 52 of the EPC (and hence section 1(2) of the Act) in relation to business and software patents. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate then that the EPO has declined to address the questions posed to it by Jacob LJ in Aerotel/Macrossan in relation to such exclusions. Guidance from the EPO would be particularly useful, not just to ensure consistency between the UK courts and the rest of the European community, but also because the majority of all software and business method patents are granted by the EPO.

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 29/03/2007.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions