Application of Patent Law to Software in the IoT Context
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.28946/slrev.v9i2.3184Keywords:
Internet of Things, Computer Programmes, Software Patents, Patentable Subject Matters, Copyright Protection.Abstract
The Internet of Things (IoT) is a promising field. It is estimated that around 75.44 billion devices will be connected by 2025. Undeniably, IoT will deeply impact the current intellectual property system. Many issues will be revisited and examined. This article addresses software patent protection in light of IoT. Software patent protection criteria are still embroiled in controversy. The authors examine the patentability of software in general and in the IoT context in the US, EU, UK, and Malaysian legal systems to determine the appropriate protection mechanism for software that perplexes the idea-expression dichotomy as the main premise of the copyright-patent distinction. The research is a theoretical qualitative study which traces law-related articles on IoT and software patents from multiple databases such as Hein Online and LexisNexis. The study also discussed court cases related to software and computer program patents. Furthermore, it relies on an analytical discussion of statutes and legislations in the US, EU, UK, and Malaysia, concluding that there is a conflation of computer programs and software. If the two terms are interpreted precisely in accordance with their meanings, IoT software inventions will not be at the centre of the controversy about the applicability of patent law.References
Acharya, A. K. “Abstraction in Software Patents (and How to Fix It).” J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L, 2018, 18.
“Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347 - Supreme Court 2014,” n.d.
“AliceStorm Update for Q1 2017 | Fenwick & West LLP,” n.d.
“Application of Prater, 415 F. 2d 1393 - Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1969,” n.d.
Asada, Minoru, Koh Hosoda, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Yasuo Kuniyoshi, and Toshio Inui. “Towards Computational Developmental Model Based on Synthetic Approaches.” In 2009 IEEE 8th International Conference on Development and Learning, ICDL 2009, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1109/DEVLRN.2009.5175544.
“Asia-Pacific Internet of Things Market, 2019,” 2019.
Azmi, A. G., Madieha, I., & Jeong, C. P. Patent Law in Malaysia: Cases and Commentary. Sweet & Maxwell Asia., 2015.
Bently, L., & Sherman, B. Intellectual Property Law. Oxford University Press, USA., 2014.
Bently, L., Sherman, B., Gangjee, D., Johnson, P. “No Title.” Intellectual Property Law. Oxford University Press, 2022.
BG Corporation v. Walter Kidde & Co., 79 F. 2d 20 - Circuit Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit (1935).
Bibri, S. E. “The IoT for Smart Sustainable Cities: From Theory to Practice.” Journal of Big Data 8, no. 1 (2021): 47.
Bilski v. Kappos, 561 US - Supreme Court (2010).
Campanile, L., Faralli, C., Marozzo, F., Talia, D., & Trunfio, P. “An AI-Driven Methodology for Patent Evaluation in the IoT Sector: Assessing Relevance and Future Impact.” In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Internet of Things, Big Data and Security, 2025, 501–508.
Choudhary. “A. Internet of Things: A Comprehensive Overview, Architectures, Applications, Simulation Tools, Challenges and Future Directions.” Discov Internet Things 4, no. 2 (2024).
“DdR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels. Com, LP, 773 F. 3d 1245 - Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit 2014.” n.d.
Delbert Seaman, Conrad. “Osgoode Hall Review of Law and Policy Contextualizing the Software Patent Debate in Canada: A Practical Approach to Policy Development.” Osgoode Hall Review of Law and Policy 3, no. 1 (2010): 97–132.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 US 303 - Supreme Court (1980).
Diega, Guido Noto La. “Software Patents and the Internet of Things in Europe, the United States and India.” European Intellectual Property Review 39, no. 3 (2017): 173–84.
Elgazzar, Khalid, et al. “Revisiting the Internet of Things: New Trends, Opportunities and Grand Challenges.” Frontiers in the Internet of Things 1 (2022).
"Federal Register : 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance," n.d.
“G16y Information and Communication Technology Specially Adapted For The Internet of Things,” n.d.
González, Andrés Guadamuz. “The Software Patent Debate.” Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 1, no. 3 (February 2006): 196–206. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpi046.
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 US 63 - Supreme Court 1972 (n.d.).
Hassanin, E. M. R. E., Ismail, N., & Faizee, Z. M. “From Connectivity to Prosperity: Government Initiatives for Malaysia’s Success in IoT.” IEEE 21st Student Conference on Research and Development (SCOReD), 2023, 622–31.
Helen Norman. Intellectual Property Law Directions. 2nd ed., 2014.
Hilty, Reto, and Christophe Geiger. “Patenting Software? - A Judicial and Socio-Economic Analysis.” Intellectual Property and Competition Law 36, no. 6 (2005): 615–47.
“In Re Alappat, 33 F. 3d 1526 - Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit 1994 -.” n.d.
In re Bilski, 545 F. 3d 943 - Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit 2008 (n.d.).
“Intellectual Property and Digital Trade in the Age of Artificial Intelligence and Big Data | Infojustice,” n.d.
Kim, Y. Eui. “Internet of Things and the Implication of Legal Risks and Solutions.” Beobhag Yeon’gu-Cungbug Daehag’gyo, 2022, 123–68.
KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398 - Supreme Court (2007).
Kumar, Sapna. “Abandoning the Exception: Rewriting Patent Eligibility.” Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 19, no. 1 (2021): 55–93.
Lee, Sung Hoon. “Non-Obviousness in Combination Patents after KSR.” Federal Circuit Bar Journal 26 (2016): 229–76.
Lemley, M. A. “Software Patents and the Return of Functional Claiming.” Wis. L. Rev, 2013, 905.
"Lens Patent Search: 'Internet of Things '," n.d.
Lin, Yu-Kai, Arun Rai. “The Scope of Software Patent Protection in the Digital Age: Evidence from Alice.” Information Systems Research 30, no. 2 (2024): 657–72.
Lindholm, Stephen. “Marking the Software Patent Beast.” Stanford Journal of Law, Business & Finance 10, no. 2 (2005): 82–128.
Liu, Michael Xun. “Subject Matter Eligibility and Functional Claiming in Software Patents.” North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology 20 (2018).
Mayo Collaborative v. Prometheus Labs., 132 S. Ct. 1289 - Supreme Court. (2012).
Mehta, Rishika, Jyoti Sahni, and Kavita Khanna. “Internet of Things: Vision, Applications and Challenges.” In Procedia Computer Science, 132:1263–69. Elsevier B.V., 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.05.042.
Menell, Peter S. “Rise of The API Copyright Dead?: An Updated Epitaph For Copyright Protection of Network and Functional Features Of Computer Software.” Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 31 (2018).
Mohammadzadeh, Ali Kamali, Saeed Ghafoori, Ayoub Mohammadian, Reza Mohammadkazemi, Bahareh Mahbanooei, and Rohollah Ghasemi. "A Fuzzy Analytic Network Process (FANP) Approach for Prioritising Internet of Things Challenges in Iran." Technology in Society, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.01.007.
Mullin, Joe. “Supreme Court Smashes ‘Do It on a Computer’ Patents in 9-0 Opinion | Ars Technica.” Ars Technica, 2014.
Office, European Patent. Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office (2021).
———. “T 0208/84 (Computer-Related Invention) of 15.7.1986,” n.d.
———. “T 1173/97 (Computer Program Product/IBM) of 1.7.1998,” n.d.
Osterweil, Leon J. “What Is Software?” In The Essence of Software Engineering, 59–76. Springer International Publishing, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73897-0_4.
Paez, Mauricio, Mike La Marca. “The Internet of Things: Emerging Legal Issues for Businesses.” N. Ky. L. Rev 43 (2016): 29.
Paez, Mauricio, and Mike La Marca. “The Internet of Things: Emerging Legal Issues for Businesses.” Northern Kentucky Law Review 43 (2016).
Parker v. Flook, 437 US 584 - Supreme Court 1978 (n.d.).
Patent Office, European. Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office (2016).
Robinson, W. Keith. “Patent Law Challenges for the Internet of Things.” Wake Forest Journal of Business and Intellectual Property Law 15 (2014).
Samuelson, Pamela. “Staking the Boundaries of Software Copyrights in the Shadow of Patents.” Florida Law Review 71, no. 2 (2019): 243–302.
———. “Staking the Boundaries of Software Copyrights in the Shadow of Patents.” Florida Law Review 71 (2019): 243–302.
Sherman, Brad. “Intangible Machines: Patent Protection for Software in the United States Special Issue-Technologies of the Law/ Law as a Technology.” History of Science 57, no. 1 (2019): 18–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0073275318770781.
———. “SCP/15/3 ANNEX II 2. Computer Programs As Excluded Patentable Subject Matter,” n.d.
Slowinski, Peter. “Rethinking Software Protection.” In Artificial Intelligence & Intellectual Property, 615–25. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1387-1609(00)01175-0.
“Software Patent: Everything You Need to Know,” n.d.
“Software Patent.” Court Uncourt 8, no. 5 (2021): 34–37.
“State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F. 3d 1368 - Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit 1998 -.” n.d.
Storm, Christopher S. “Standard Essential Patents Versus the World: How the Internet of Things Will Change Patent Licensing Forever.” Tex. Intell. Prop. LJ 30 (2021): 259.
Stroud, Jonathan, and Derek M. Kim. “Debugging Software Patents after Alice.” South Carolina Law Review 69 (2017): 177–220.
Supreme Court. Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. (2021).
Thomas, Robert E, and Robert E Thomast. “Debugging Software Patents: Increasing Innovation and Reducing Uncertainty in the Judicial Reform of Software Patent Law .” Technology Law Journal 25 (2008).
Tobin, Garrett. “Is the USPTO Turning Alice into EPC Article 52?” Arizona Law Review 62 (2020).
Toliwal, Manisha. “Copyright Protection for Computer Software: Critical Analysis.” Jus Corpus Law Journal 3, no. 1 (2022): 1041–52.
Välimäki, M. The Rise of Open Source Licensing: A Challenge to the Use of Intellectual Property in the Software Industry, 2005.
Vishnubhakat, Saurabh. “Patentable Subject Matter and Institutional Choice.” Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 34, no. 1 (2020).
Vojković, G., Milenković, M., Katulić, T. "IoT and Smart Home Data Breach Risks from the Perspective of Data Protection and Information Security Law." Business Systems Research Journal 11, no. 3 (2020): 167–85.
Waart, Peter van, Ingrid Mulder, and Cees de Bont. “A Participatory Approach for Envisioning a Smart City.” Social Science Computer Review 34, no. 6 (December 2016): 708–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315611099.
“World-First and New Patent Classification Created for IoT-Based Technologies（METI）,” n.d.
Yousefnezhad, M., Souri, A., & Anjomshoaa, A. “Secure Context-Aware Architecture for IoT Environments.” Computer Standards & Interfaces, 2023, 84.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Sriwijaya Law Review
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
