Editing List of software patents (section)

== Business methods ==
{{clr}}
<!-- Note: Please cite sources when adding entries to this list, non sourced entries will be removed -->
{|  class=wikitable
!  width="15%" | Number
!  width="65%" | Comments
!  width="10%" | Other [[Patent family|family]] members
!  width="10%" | Earliest filing date
|- valign="top"
| '''{{Cite patent|country=US|number=5193056}}''' <small> (''Main article: [[State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group]]'') </small>
| This patent was at the center of a [[United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit|US Federal Circuit]] judgment in 1998 which confirmed that business methods implemented on a computer are patentable in the US since they produced a "useful, concrete and tangible result".<ref>{{Cite web
 |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/patent/comments/96_1327.htm
 |title=Financial services software containing algorithm is patentable
 |publisher=[[Cornell University]]
 |accessdate=2007-04-12}}</ref> The [[claim (patent)|claim]]s of the corresponding European patent application were rejected by the [[European Patent Office]] (EPO) as relating to unpatentable subject matter.<ref>{{EPO Register|appno=92908680|patno=0575519}}</ref>
| {{Cite patent|country=EP|number=0575519|status=application}}
| <small>1991-03-11</small>
|- valign="top"
| '''{{Cite patent|country=US|number=5960411}}''' <small> (''Main article: [[1-Click]]'') </small>
| [[Amazon.com]] sued [[Barnes & Noble]] for violating its "One click buy" but the case was ultimately settled.<ref>{{Cite web
 |url=http://news.cnet.com/2100-1017-854105.html 
 |title=Amazon, Barnes & Noble settle patent suit 
 |publisher=[[CNET]] 
 |accessdate=2007-04-12 
 |archiveurl=https://archive.today/20120711225137/http://news.cnet.com/2100-1017-854105.html 
 |archivedate=2012-07-11 
 |url-status=dead 
}}</ref> Amazon has so far failed to obtain a similar patent in Europe.<ref>{{Cite web
 |url=http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2007/02/another-setback-for-amazon-1-click.html
 |title=Another setback for Amazon 1-click
 |publisher=[[IPKat]]
 |accessdate=2007-04-12}}</ref>
| {{Cite patent|country=EP|number=1134680|status=application}}
| <small>1997-09-12</small>
|- valign="top"
| '''{{Cite patent|country=GB|number=2388937|status=application}}''' <small>(''Main article: [[Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan's Application]]'') </small>
| Although granted in several non-European countries, the patent application was refused as relating to excluded subject matter under [[Software patents under United Kingdom patent law|UK law]] as being a method of doing business and a program for a computer as such.<ref>{{cite BAILII
 |litigants=Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holding Ltd and others, and Neal William Macrossan's application
 |court=EWCA
 |division=Civ
 |year=2006
 |num=1371
 |date=2006-10-27}}</ref> The case law developed in refusing this patent application forms the basis for the current practice of the [[UK Intellectual Property Office]] (UK-IPO) when deciding whether to grant patent applications involving excluded subject matter such as computer programs.<ref>{{Cite web
 |url=http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-law/p-law-notice/p-law-notice-subjectmatter.htm 
 |title=Patents Act 1977: Patentable subject matter 
 |accessdate=2007-03-12 
 |publisher=[[UK Intellectual Property Office]] 
 |url-status=dead 
 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070206031521/http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-law/p-law-notice/p-law-notice-subjectmatter.htm 
 |archivedate=2007-02-06 
}}</ref> The EPO have refused to search for [[prior art]] that might be relevant to the corresponding European patent application, stating that such a search would serve no useful purpose since the application solves no technical problem.<ref>{{EPO Register|appno=01997756|patno=1346304}}</ref>
| {{Cite patent|country=EP|number=1346304|status=application}} <br /> {{Cite patent|country=AU|number=759130B}} <br /> {{Cite patent |country=NZ|number=526345}} <br /> {{Cite patent |country=SA|number=20034644}}
| <small>2000-11-23</small>
|- valign="top"
| '''{{Cite patent|country=US|number=7013284}}'''
|[[Accenture]] sued [[Guidewire Software]] in December 2007, alleging their infringement of this insurance technology patent. Accenture alleged that Guidewire infringed the US patent protecting an insurance claims management technology that Accenture developed and licenses to the insurance industry. Intellectual property suits are not common in the insurance software market and this suit may represent a new front in the intellectual property wars according to one analyst.<ref>{{Cite web
 |url=http://newsroom.accenture.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=4625
 |title=Accenture Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Guidewire
 |publisher=[[Accenture]]
 |accessdate=2007-12-31}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web
 |url=http://www.financetech.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205100771
 |title=Accenture Sues Guidewire for Alleged Patent Infringement
 |publisher=[[FinanceTech]] ([[Information Week]] [[InformationWeek]])
 |accessdate=2007-12-31}}</ref>
|
| <small>1999-05-04</small>
|}