680:, «un procédé ne peut être privé de la brevetabilité pour le seul motif qu'une ou plusieurs de ces étapes sont réalisées par un ordinateur devant être commandé par un programme, qu'une telle solution aboutirait à exclure du domaine de la brevetabilité la plupart des inventions importantes récentes qui nécessitent l'intervention d'un programme d'ordinateur»., it was determined that a patent cannot be invalidated only because it uses a computer program as part of the technical process. In
28:
758:, then president of the EPO, is reported to have said that the EPO was very interested in developments in the case law of national courts and that he had "taken note of the UK decision, but a decision on whether or not it would be opportune to follow the suggestions for a referral has not yet been taken." Subsequently, however, it appears that Alain Pompidou has written a letter dated 22 February 2007 to
227:" are not regarded as inventions for the purpose of granting European patents, but this exclusion from patentability only applies to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to a computer program as such. As a result of this partial exclusion, and despite the fact that the EPO subjects patent applications in this field to a much stricter scrutiny when compared to their
604:), and came to the conclusion that the claimed subject-matter did properly meet the 'technical' requirement, can not be excluded from patentability for that reason and that the court has to go into substantial examination. The question about the exclusion of "computer programs as such"(sic) was mentioned the first time, but set aside as the court did not see the need to determine that question.
305:, is that an invention is patentable if it provides a new and non-obvious "technical" solution to a technical problem. The problem, and the solution, may be entirely resident within a computer such as a way of making a computer run faster or more efficiently in a novel and inventive way. Alternatively, the problem may be how to make the computer easier to use, such as in T 928/03.
650:"En effet, depuis la loi de 1968 en France et – surtout – depuis l'adoption de la Convention de Munich en 1973, il existe une exception légale à la brevetabilité qui concerne les "programmes d'ordinateur"." Bertrand WARUSFEL "La brevetabilité des inventions logicielles dans les jurisprudences européenne et américaine" Colloque AFDIT 2002, B. Warusfel, 2002-2003 p.3 that excluded
527:
simply a tool that was being used to implement a new set of business rules and the invention was not really about the computer program. Although the judgement stressed that the reasoning used was quite different from the type that would have been applied by the EPO, the judge was satisfied that the EPO would have come to the same conclusion using their own reasoning.
668:«En France, par exemple, un arrêt très récent de la Cour d'Appel de Paris a ainsi rejeté une demande de brevet au motif que l'effet recherché par l'invention (en l'espèce, l'authentification à distance de l'usager d'un service en ligne par le biais de l'opérateur du réseau de télécommunication) n'était pas, en lui-même, de nature technique dès lors que "
386:(including common general knowledge). (T 258/03, Reasons 3.1). It now suffices that a physical entity or activity involves technical means to be considered as an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC. Having technical character is an implicit requisite of an "invention" within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC (requirement of "technicality").
816:
perceived more stringent restrictions against software patenting employed or employable by national courts, and lead to an increased assertion of patents on software Union-wide across the EU. After a history of procedural wrangling, and sustained lobbying and publicity efforts from both sides, the
Directive, which had largely been supported by the
781:, referred a point of law to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The questions which were the subject of the referral related to the patentability of programs for computers under the European Patent Convention (EPC) and were, according to the President of the EPO, of fundamental importance as they related to the definition of "the limits of
789:." The referral had been quoted as relating to the "deeply contentious question about how to assess the patentability of software-related inventions". In May 2010 however, the Enlarged Board of Appeal considered the referral to be inadmissible because, in their opinion, no divergent decisions had been identified in the referral.
770:) advising that he has "decided that at the moment there is an insufficient legal basis for a referral under Article 112(1)(b)", and that "the appropriate moment for a referral would be where the approach taken by one Board of Appeal would lead to the grant of a patent whereas the approach taken by another Board would not".
666:, rejected the patentability. «Ce fut, par exemple, le critère retenu dans l'arrêt Mobil Oil de la Cour de cassation française en 1975, qui refusa de valider un brevet au motif qu'il portait sur un programme destiné à de simples calculs informatiques, hors de tout appareillage ou procédé technique externe.»
812:. Even though Switzerland for instance is a member of the European Patent Organisation but not a member of the European Union, the EPO also signalled that it would have been likely to adjust its practice, if necessary, to conform with whatever text had finally emerged from the EU legislative procedure,
834:
Final interpretation of the law in this area thus continues to be the responsibility of national courts, following national case-law (except when a
European patent application is refused or when a European patent is revoked in opposition proceedings before the EPO, in which case the EPO has the final
701:
for
European patents: which means that the European patent after grant will be regarded a single undividable patent for those EU countries that participate. For the latter patents, the Unified Patent Court will generally have exclusive competence. Regarding software, Article 27k of the Unified Patent
526:
The two patent applications in question both involved networked interactive wagering on the outcomes of events. Each application was refused as relating to a method of doing business as such. The applications were not refused as relating to a computer program as such, because the computer program was
352:
Any of the subject-matter listed in
Article 52(2) EPC may comprise an invention if it has technical character or contributes to it (in particular because a technical problem is solved by using technical means or a technical effect is achieved, technical interactions occur or technical adaptations are
815:
However, the directive became highly controversial, drawing increasing legislative notoriety to this area of
European law. Proponents of the Directive claimed its purpose was to clarify the meaning of Article 52, by consolidating existing EPO practice. Opponents claimed the Directive would dismantle
547:
came to the conclusion that the claimed invention was obvious, but specifically rejected the allegation that it was excluded from patent protection as a computer program as such. He noted that "all modern industry depends upon programmed computers, and one must be astute not to defeat patents on the
492:
lawsuit or revocation proceedings before a national court if for instance the court judges the invention as non-patentable in view of new prior art evidence or in view of a reconsideration of the available prior art. Furthermore, member states have certain degree of freedom regarding exceptions: the
439:, cannot be taken into account for the assessment of inventive step, unless they (the non-technical features) do interact with the technical subject-matter to solve a technical problem. Assessing whether or not a feature contributes to the technical character of a claim has been viewed as difficult.
338:
According to the jurisprudence of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, a technical effect provided by a computer program can be, for example, a reduced memory access time, a better control of a robotic arm or an improved reception and/or decoding of a radio signal. It does not have to be external to the
334:
Though many argue that there is an inconsistency on how the EPO now applies
Article 52, the practice of the EPO is fairly consistent regarding the treatment of the different elements of Article 52(2). A mathematical method is not patentable, but an electrical filter designed according to this method
394:
of
Article 52(2) and (3) is only the first step towards patentability, the first hurdle. Computer programs can also be refused and are often refused on the ground of lack of inventive step. This is the second hurdle, which should not mixed up with the first hurdle. As a Board of appeal put it in T
357:
Some ten years before 2006, a shift occurs in the case law. The "contribution approach" or "technical effect approach", used to assess what was regarded as an invention within the meaning of Art. 52(1) and (2), was abandoned. According to the "contribution approach" (see for instance T 52/85), the
347:
As of 2013, the criterion used for distinguishing "inventions" from "non-inventions" at the EPO, i.e. the patent eligibility requirement at the EPO, is that the subject-matter must have a technical character. Whether the subject-matter has a technical character is assessed without reference to the
466:
expert may be chosen as the reference fictional person. This means that the mere implementation of a business method on a computer or computer network rarely involves an inventive step, while improving a computer-assisted industrial process or providing a more efficient memory management within a
750:
said (at para. 25) that "The decisions of the EPO Boards of Appeal are mutually contradictory" and (also at para. 25) that "surely the time has come for matters to be clarified by an
Enlarged Board of Appeal". And even though the English Court of Appeal went on to say (at para. 25) that it "is
709:
have argued that the proposed
Unified Patent Court court to be run by patent judges, and may have strong ties to the patent industry. They assume therefore it allows software patents to be enforced despite rules that forbid them -such as explicitly allowing decompiling of software protected by
696:
is a proposed court, common to several member states of the
European Union, including Germany, France and Italy. Once it enters into force it will have jurisdiction regarding European patents as any national court would do. With the entry into force of the Unified Patent Court Agreement, patent
1039:
I. Making a possibly concealed indicator clearly visible on a display screen to the user of an interactive video game does not exclusively address a human mental process but contributes an objective technical function to the display. The functional quality is not cancelled by the fact that the
487:
The case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal is not binding on the EPO member states and different national courts acting on different cases may take a different view of patentability under Art. 52(2) EPC. The decision of EPO (directly or in appeal proceedings) not to a grant a European patent can
416:
The technical character requirements relating to the first hurdle is now a formal requirement. In other words, it is a simple test that is related to the language used in the patent claim. Acceptable software patent claims can meet the first hurdle by starting with "computer-implemented method
478:
The practice for assessing the technical character for the second hurdle in the EPO is described in the Guidelines for Examination, which provides specific examples in the field of artificial intelligence and machine learning. To meet the second hurdle, a software invention needs to present a
594:) ruled on a case involving a national patent application claiming a computer-implemented invention, namely a "method for hierarchical logic verification of highly-integrated circuits". Going against the run of previous case law, it overruled the German Federal Patent Court (German:
442:
Furthermore, the "state of the art" (used as the starting point for the inventive step assessment) should be construed as meaning the "state of technology", the person skilled in the art is the person skilled in the relevant field of technology, and "for the purpose of the
654:«les programmes ou séries d'instructions pour le déroulement des opérations d'une machine calculatrice» ("programs or series of instructions for the procession of operations of a calculating machine", i.e. computer programs) from being an industrial invention in 1968 in
447:, the problem must be a technical problem which the skilled person in the particular technical field might be asked to solve at the relevant priority date". Fields excluded under Art. 52(2) are not considered part of the technology for the assessment of inventive step.
2005:
1995:
412:. Needless to say, however, this does not imply that all methods involving the use of technical means are patentable. They still have to be new, represent a non-obvious technical solution to a technical problem, and be susceptible of industrial application.
2000:
314:
125:
284:
The provisions of paragraph 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
565:
as not being intellectually honest. The EPO Boards of Appeal have since responded by saying that the technical effect approach (with the rider) applied in the Aerotel/Macrossan judgement is irreconcilable with the European Patent Convention.
470:
The case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal is not binding on the first instance departments of the EPO (i.e. the Examining Divisions), and different Examining Divisions of the EPO may assess patentability differently. Likewise, during an
475:, where the grant of a recently granted European patent may be opposed by a third party (opponent), the patent may be revoked if the Opposition Division form a different view on whether or not the invention in question was patentable.
773:
Subsequently, the Board in decision T 154/04 refused to refer questions "explicitly taken from the questions proposed for referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal in the "Aerotel/Macrossan" judgement" to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.
751:
formally no business of ours to define questions to be asked of an Enlarged Board of Appeal", it went on to suggest (at para. 76) questions which it thought that the President of the EPO may refer to an EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal.
293:
The words "as such" have caused patent applicants, attorneys, examiners, and judges a great deal of difficulty since the EPC came into force in 1978. The Convention, as with all international conventions, should be construed using a
479:"technical application". This application is the purpose of the invention as defined in the patent claim, establishing a connection between a technical limitation of the patent claim and the technical purpose of the invention.
1959:
543:, the UK High Court had the opportunity to consider a patent that had been granted by the EPO. The patent involved the 'pretreating' of web pages before they were downloaded to machines of modest processing capacity.
807:
was to have been to establish common practice for the national courts; and, in cases of doubt as to its interpretation, to have created a requirement for national courts of last instance to seek a ruling from the
172:
399:
aware that comparatively broad interpretation of the term "invention" in Article 52(1) EPC will include activities which are so familiar that their technical character tends to be overlooked, such as the act of
2076:
1248:
Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office, Part G: Patentability, Chapter II: Inventions, 3: List of exclusions, 3.3: Mathematical methods, 3.3.1: Artificial intelligence and machine learning
798:
362:
subject-matter did not concern an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC when no contribution was made in a field not excluded from patentability. The "contribution approach" was a disguised
1990:
1726:
672:"» Bertrand WARUSFEL "La brevetabilité des inventions logicielles dans les jurisprudences européenne et américaine" Colloque AFDIT 2002, B. Warusfel, 2002-2003 p.4 et p.8 for the reason of missing a
2108:
2021:
1082:
Case law of the EPO boards of appeal: a review by internal and external experts, The patentability of computer-implemented inventions, Part 1: The legal basis for patentability - Article 52 EPC
2102:
530:
The decision criticises the EPO's reliance on insisting that an invention must provide a technical contribution, and not merely a business based contribution. As evidenced by the judgment in
1933:
2061:
1969:
1840:
165:
130:
1954:
1884:
472:
2056:
425:
The interpretation of the term "invention" in the patentable subject-matter test, as used by the Boards of Appeal, has come with an adjustment of the case law relating to the
426:
158:
78:
1964:
736:
324:
302:
1949:
382:
The structure of the EPC (...) suggests that it should be possible to determine whether subject-matter is excluded under Article 52(2) EPC without any knowledge of the
2096:
1137:
Case law of the EPO boards of appeal: a review by internal and external experts, The patentability of computer-implemented inventions, Part 2: Case law relevant to CII
104:
516:
which stated that it would be disastrous if there was any substantial divergence between the interpretations given by the UK courts and the EPO to Article 52(2) EPC.
1604:"Full copy (including date) of Professor Alain Pompidou's letter (President EPO) to Lord Justice Jacob (Court of Appeal of England and Wales) dated 22 February 2007"
1414:
109:
1687:
2128:
2081:
1501:
1112:
743:
557:
835:
say regarding the interpretation of the EPC). A decisive supra-national authority for European patent law cases could be created under either proposals for the
1057:
EPO boards of appeal and key decisions: Patentability of computer-based and business-related inventions from the perspective of a patent attorney (Part 1 of 3)
931:
1858:
Prof. Lenz: Interpretation of Art 52 of the European Patent Convention regarding the question to what extent software is patentable (translation from German)
523:
was the first in a flurry of UK court cases since 2005 involving re-consideration by the High Court of patent applications refused by the UK Patent Office.
1161:
Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office, Part G: Patentability, Chapter II: Inventions, 3: List of exclusions, 3.6: Programs for computers
827:
This failure to reform the exclusion of software followed the failed attempt to delete programs for computers from Art. 52(2)(c) of the convention in 2000
359:
1806:
1877:
99:
1040:
visualised information will also enter into a decision of the user interacting with the video game displayed on the screen (point 4.1.1 of the reasons).
1467:
1454:
855:
press release of 2002, "since the EPC came into force in 1978, at least 30,000 patents for computer-implemented inventions have already been issued ".
928:
International Software Patent Filing: The Problem of Statutory Subject Matter in view of Legal Standards at the EPO-USPTO and Economic Implications
2051:
319:
Like the other parts of the paragraph 2, computer programs are open to patenting to the extent that they provide a technical contribution to the
1747:
Examination of computer-implemented inventions at the European Patent Office with particular attention to computer-implemented business methods
73:
1675:
630:
In fact, more recently the same court has repeatedly upheld the rejection of patent claims to computers and programs operating thereon, as in
623:
tradition of mainland Europe however, legal precedent does not necessarily acquire the same formally binding character that it assumes in the
2431:
1870:
1645:
763:
747:
510:
noted that the EPO decisions are prescriptive, but not binding on the UK courts, but also recalled the judgement of the Court of Appeal in
2066:
1828:
978:, Justine Pila (University of Oxford - Faculty of Law), International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Vol. 36, 2005
1586:
364:
52:
339:
computer on which the program is run; reduced hard disk access time or an enhanced user interface could also be a technical effect.
1762:
1718:
976:
Article 52(2) of the Convention on the Grant of European Patents: What Did the Framers Intend? A Study of the Travaux Preparatoires
831:. At the time the reform was explicitly derogated in order to await the outcome of the consultation process for this EU Directive.
493:
extent to which another party may use a patent, for example to decompile software that would otherwise infringe a European patent.
1197:, p. 15: "The board noted the difficulty of assessing whether or not a feature contributed to the technical character of a claim."
1974:
1023:
Giving visual indications automatically about conditions prevailing in an apparatus or system is basically a technical problem.
615:
1590:
684:, the court declared that a claim for an information system always has technical character and is therefore protectible.
2426:
1893:
828:
767:
609:
938:, Academic Year 2004/2005, Master's Thesis (Munich Intellectual Property Law Center (MIPLC)), Retrieved 21 March 2006.
1135:
1080:
536:
the commercial background to an invention may help to show that a certain technical advance was or was not obvious.
1907:
1791:
1731:
1676:
Complete file, including the referral from the President of the EPO and the opinion of the Enlarged Board of Appeal
1370:
1271:
925:
914:
900:
886:
732:
436:
205:
1485:
820:
and most member-state governments in contrast with their national parliaments, was overwhelmingly rejected by the
348:
prior art. According to Stefan Steinbrener, former chairman of an EPO Technical Board of Appeal, this means that:
2041:
809:
548:
ground that the subject matter is excluded under Article 52 unless the invention lies in excluded subject matter
391:
201:
1246:
580:
2046:
2036:
620:
57:
1844:
1159:
1690:
Proposal for a Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions - frequently asked questions
1658:
947:
2071:
1352:
1208:
1108:
1034:
1028:
1018:
1003:
561:
criticised EPO practice to deem non-technical subject matter, such as new music or a story, as part of the
2362:
1928:
1780:
655:
257:
The European Patent Convention (EPC), Article 52, paragraph 2, excludes from patentability, in particular
213:
146:
47:
1745:
673:
395:
258/03 (Reasons 4.6) in relation to the fact that the "contribution approach" was no longer applicable,
1797:
1408:
836:
488:
however not be challenged in national courts. Any European patent issued by the EPO may be revoked in a
1190:
2118:
1751:
1309:
1295:
963:
840:
693:
2221:
2088:
1283:
852:
821:
817:
711:
596:
489:
1572:
1530:
1340:
759:
295:
1710:
1558:
991:
1274:
recites on which grounds a European patent may be revoked under the law of a Contracting State.
2378:
1825:
1758:
1714:
1486:"La brevetabilité des inventions logicielles dans les jurisprudences européenne et américaine"
702:
Court Agreement allows decompiling of software, even without the consent of the patent owner.
586:
501:
463:
459:
375:
224:
1821:
505:
1396:
1325:
706:
544:
383:
268:
schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and
190:
458:
policies for instance cannot be chosen as the fictional person skilled in the art, while a
353:
effected, in other words: if such subject-matter lends itself to a technical application)."
2271:
1857:
1832:
1194:
935:
778:
217:
42:
1820:
E-learning modules on the "Patentability of computer-implemented inventions at the EPO":
531:
511:
432:
Any non-technical feature, i.e. a feature from a field excluded from patentability under
298:. However, the purpose behind the words and the exclusions themselves is far from clear.
1055:
2336:
2176:
2123:
1662:
755:
698:
444:
331:
that goes beyond the normal physical interaction between the program and the computer.
1513:
2420:
2236:
988:
Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd and others, and Neal William Macrossan's application
867:, pending referral dealing with the patentability of computer-implemented simulations
782:
246:
1757:
Philip Leith, Software and Patents in Europe, Cambridge University Press, UK, 2007,
1603:
1337:
Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holding Ltd and others, and Neal William Macrossan's application
378:
have made it clear that the contribution approach was no longer applicable. Indeed
1794:, the central legal provision on patentability under the European Patent Convention
714:
to bring those provisions under EU law rather than under Unified Patent Court law.
315:
List of decisions of the EPO Boards of Appeal relating to Article 52(2) and (3) EPC
1544:
1268:
729:
27:
1788:
911:
897:
883:
433:
2326:
2266:
504:, while sitting as a Deputy Judge in the UK High Court, and in consideration of
1862:
1400:
2296:
2261:
2246:
1388:
1191:
Decision T 1749/06 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03 of 24 February 2010
624:
1693:, Reference: MEMO/02/32, Brussels, 20 February 2002, Retrieved 21 March 2006.
2241:
2031:
1441:
1428:
1365:
786:
739:
where two Boards of Appeal have given different decisions on that question.
562:
455:
451:
320:
232:
194:
710:
patents in the Unified Patent Court Agreement- and failed attempts by the
2370:
2311:
2306:
2286:
2161:
1912:
1776:
1724:
Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office,
1225:
371:
236:
323:. In the case of computer programs and according to the case law of the
2402:
2394:
2386:
2291:
2216:
2211:
2201:
2191:
2186:
2181:
2166:
2156:
2151:
2146:
2026:
2001:
Decisions of the Boards of Appeal relating to Article 52(2) and (3) EPC
735:, the President of the EPO has the power to refer a point of law to an
575:
401:
241:
803:
Proposed in 2002, one motivation at least for the controversial draft
2331:
2321:
2301:
2281:
2276:
2256:
2231:
2206:
2196:
2171:
1140:. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office. 10:00 to 10:20 minutes in
1085:. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office. 13:56 to 14:42 minutes in
1060:. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office. 14:55 to 15:10 minutes in
864:
723:
209:
805:
EU Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions
670:
les moyens techniques utilisés, déjà connus, ne sont pas revendiqués
975:
335:
would not be excluded from patentability by Article 52(2) and (3).
2316:
2251:
2226:
1514:"SA SAGEM c./ M. le directeur de l'INPI CA Paris, 10 janvier 2003"
409:
228:
1559:"Europe's "unitary patent" could mean unlimited software patents"
799:
Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions
793:
Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions
1866:
777:
Eventually, on 22 October 2008, the then President of the EPO,
405:
206:
Convention on the Grant of European Patents of October 5, 1973
1015:
For the enhanced user interface, see for instance decisions:
208:. The subject also includes the question of whether European
1195:
Special edition OJ EPO 2/2011, EPO Board of Appeal Case Law
262:
discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
200:
is the extent to which subject matter in these fields is
1707:
Patenting Software Under the European Patent Convention
824:
on 6 July 2005, terminating the legislative procedure.
627:
traditions typical of most English-speaking countries.
2006:
Successful petitions for review under Article 112a EPC
1996:
Decisions and opinions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal
1627:
Decision T 154/04, Summary of Facts and Submissions V.
697:
proprietors will also have the possibility to request
607:
BPatG objections were also overruled in the decisions
584:(13 December 1999), the German Federal Court (German:
2345:
2137:
2014:
1983:
1942:
1921:
1900:
343:
First hurdle: patentable subject-matter requirement
309:
Patentability under European Patent Office case law
1209:"T 0172/03 (Order management/RICOH) of 27.11.2003"
1111:of 15 November 2006, Reasons 12, published in the
223:Under the EPC, and in particular its Article 52, "
2052:European Round Table on Patent Practice (EUROTAB)
1322:Research In Motion UK Ltd. v Inpro Licensing SARL
541:Research In Motion UK Ltd. v Inpro Licensing SARL
1587:"House of Lords: We won't hear Macrossan appeal"
1799:Patents for software? European law and practice
1659:"EU software patent issue goes to appeals body"
1193:, Reasons for the Decision 4.2.2. Discussed in
1104:
1102:
1100:
282:
259:
2129:Unitary patent (Switzerland and Liechtenstein)
1817:(on the Internet Archive, pdf document, 400KB)
1813:Law and Practice at the European Patent Office
1113:Official Journal of the European Patent Office
1878:
327:, a technical contribution typically means a
301:One interpretation, which is followed by the
220:") are regarded as valid by national courts.
166:
8:
1775:For more external links, including links to
1573:"EU unitary patent and Unified Patent Court"
1480:
1478:
1476:
1031:, page 11, Reasons 4, to page 13, Reasons 5.
253:Article 52 of the European Patent Convention
1809:Computer-implemented Inventions and Patents
1727:Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO
1413:: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
744:Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan's Application
558:Aerotel v Telco and Macrossan's Application
1885:
1871:
1863:
198:under the European Patent Convention (EPC)
173:
159:
21:Computer programs, software and patent law
17:
1741: : "Computer-implemented inventions"
1251:, Munich, Germany: European Patent Office
1164:, Munich, Germany: European Patent Office
467:computer may involve an inventive step.
421:Second hurdle: inventive step requirement
216:(EPO) in these fields (sometimes called "
948:Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
718:Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal
1382:
1380:
1378:
1134:Stefan Steinbrener (23–24 March 2011).
1079:Stefan Steinbrener (23–24 March 2011).
876:
742:On 27 October 2006, in its judgment in
138:
117:
91:
65:
34:
20:
1646:Referral from the President of the EPO
1502:Mobil Oil Corp., Cass.Com.,28 mai 1975
1406:
1343: at para. 27 (27 October 2006)
964:[2005] EWHC 1589 (Patents)
829:at the diplomatic conference in Munich
619:(German BGH, 17 October 2001). In the
417:for..." or "system configured to...".
1841:Guidelines for Examination in the EPO
994: at para. 9 (27 October 2006)
646:France was the first European nation
483:Enforceability before national courts
7:
2109:Standing Advisory Committee (SACEPO)
1802:at the European Patent Office (EPO)
1531:"Brevet de logiciel en Europe (int)"
1387:vom 13.12.1999, BGHBeschluĂź (2000).
1326:[2006] EWHC 70 (Patents)
764:Court of Appeal of England and Wales
748:Court of Appeal of England and Wales
1688:European Commission Press Release,
1636:Decision T 154/04, Reasons 1 to 17.
1004:T 928/03, Konami, Video Game System
966: at para. 25 (21 July 2005)
555:The UK Court of Appeal judgment in
473:opposition procedure before the EPO
1468:InformationsĂĽbermittlungsverfahren
636:InformationsĂĽbermittlungsverfahren
14:
1236:Decision T 154/04, Reasons 5 (G).
1181:Decision T 154/04, Reasons 5 (F).
1124:Decision T 154/04, Reasons 5 (B).
658:. Two relevant decisions, namely
1908:European Patent Convention (EPC)
1805:Old brochure edited by the EPO:
1648:, 22 October 2008, cover letter.
1593:, Weekly News - 9 February 2007.
1442:Suche fehlerhafter Zeichenketten
1371:de:Logikverifikation (Beschluss)
1054:Ian Harris (8–9 November 2012).
1021:(OJ EPO 1990, 30), headnote 1: "
616:Suche fehlerhafter Zeichenketten
26:
2042:European Patent Institute (epi)
1591:Managing Intellectual Property
613:(German BGH, 11 May 2000) and
392:patentable subject matter test
231:, that does not mean that all
1:
2077:Observations by third parties
445:problem-and-solution approach
275:presentations of information.
2432:European Patent Organisation
1929:European Patent Office (EPO)
1894:European Patent Organisation
1341:[2006] EWCA Civ 1371
992:[2006] EWCA Civ 1371
768:United Kingdom Patent Office
303:Boards of Appeal of the EPO
2448:
2119:Unified Patent Court (UPC)
1913:Revised version (EPC 2000)
1730:(9th edition, July 2019),
796:
721:
427:inventive step requirement
312:
84:European Patent Convention
1960:Limitation and revocation
1453:BGH X ZB 34/03
1440:BGH X ZB 16/00
1427:BGH X ZB 15/98
1364:BGH X ZB 11/98
1207:Office, European Patent.
810:European Court of Justice
193:and computer-implemented
187:patentability of software
79:Patent Cooperation Treaty
2047:European Patent Register
2037:European Patent Bulletin
1854:"Programs for computers"
1744:European Patent Office,
1674:G 3/08, Headnote 7. See
1466:BGH X ZB 9/06
1429:Sprachanalyseeinrichtung
1401:10.7328/jurpcb/200015459
610:Sprachanalyseeinrichtung
329:further technical effect
2022:Divisional applications
1455:Rentabilitätsermittlung
1444:JurPC Web-Dok. 253/2001
1431:JurPC Web-Dok. 137/2000
632:Rentabilitätsermittlung
280:Paragraph 3 then says:
2363:Bosnia and Herzegovina
2103:Restitutio in integrum
1934:Administrative Council
1781:Software patent debate
1754:, 11/2007, pp 594–600.
1545:"End Software Patents"
1395:. WebDok 72/2000: 13.
1368:JurPC Web-Dok. 72/2000
414:
388:
355:
291:
278:
270:programs for computers
225:programs for computers
214:European Patent Office
126:European Patent Office
837:European Union patent
513:Fujitsu's application
434:Article 52(2) and (3)
397:
380:
350:
1831:11 June 2009 at the
1752:Official Journal EPO
934:21 June 2007 at the
841:Unified Patent Court
766:(with a copy to the
694:Unified Patent Court
688:Unified Patent Court
656:Loi n°68-1 Article 7
552:" (emphasis added).
265:aesthetic creations;
229:American counterpart
2427:Software patent law
2124:Unitary patent (EU)
2091:reformatio in peius
1970:Petition for review
1779:organizations, see
1711:Sweet & Maxwell
1310:CFPH's applications
1297:CFPH's applications
960:CFPH's applications
853:European Commission
822:European Parliament
818:European Commission
712:European Parliament
674:technical character
597:Bundespatentgericht
521:CFPH's applications
507:CFPH's applications
490:patent infringement
1585:Emma Barraclough,
760:Lord Justice Jacob
705:Groups opposed to
545:Mr Justice Pumfrey
450:Thus an expert in
370:Decisions such as
296:purposive approach
2414:
2413:
2407:
2399:
2391:
2383:
2375:
2367:
2355:
2349:
2067:Judges' Symposium
1705:Keith Beresford,
1665:, 24 October 2008
1366:Logikverifikation
1109:Decision T 154/04
730:Article 112(1)(b)
587:Bundesgerichtshof
581:Logikverifikation
519:The judgement in
502:Peter Prescott QC
464:memory management
460:computer hardware
191:computer programs
183:
182:
2439:
2405:
2397:
2389:
2381:
2373:
2365:
2353:
2347:
2114:Software patents
2083:Official Journal
2072:London Agreement
1887:
1880:
1873:
1864:
1851:
1847:
1738:
1734:
1694:
1685:
1679:
1672:
1666:
1655:
1649:
1643:
1637:
1634:
1628:
1625:
1619:
1618:
1616:
1614:
1608:
1600:
1594:
1583:
1577:
1576:
1569:
1563:
1562:
1555:
1549:
1548:
1541:
1535:
1534:
1527:
1521:
1520:
1518:
1510:
1504:
1499:
1493:
1492:
1490:
1482:
1471:
1464:
1458:
1457:19. Oktober 2004
1451:
1445:
1438:
1432:
1425:
1419:
1418:
1412:
1404:
1384:
1373:
1362:
1356:
1350:
1344:
1334:
1328:
1319:
1313:
1307:
1301:
1293:
1287:
1281:
1275:
1266:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1256:
1243:
1237:
1234:
1228:
1223:
1217:
1216:
1204:
1198:
1188:
1182:
1179:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1169:
1156:
1150:
1149:
1147:
1145:
1131:
1125:
1122:
1116:
1106:
1095:
1094:
1092:
1090:
1076:
1070:
1069:
1067:
1065:
1051:
1045:
1037:, catchword 1, "
1013:
1007:
1001:
995:
985:
979:
973:
967:
957:
951:
945:
939:
926:Christoph Laub,
923:
917:
909:
903:
895:
889:
881:
785:in the field of
707:software patents
653:
649:
384:state of the art
325:Boards of Appeal
218:software patents
175:
168:
161:
147:Business methods
30:
18:
2447:
2446:
2442:
2441:
2440:
2438:
2437:
2436:
2417:
2416:
2415:
2410:
2351:
2341:
2272:North Macedonia
2139:
2138:EPC contracting
2133:
2089:Prohibition of
2010:
1979:
1950:Grant procedure
1938:
1917:
1896:
1891:
1849:
1845:
1833:Wayback Machine
1772:
1736:
1732:
1702:
1700:Further reading
1697:
1686:
1682:
1673:
1669:
1656:
1652:
1644:
1640:
1635:
1631:
1626:
1622:
1612:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1601:
1597:
1584:
1580:
1571:
1570:
1566:
1557:
1556:
1552:
1543:
1542:
1538:
1529:
1528:
1524:
1516:
1512:
1511:
1507:
1500:
1496:
1488:
1484:
1483:
1474:
1465:
1461:
1452:
1448:
1439:
1435:
1426:
1422:
1405:
1386:
1385:
1376:
1369:
1363:
1359:
1351:
1347:
1335:
1331:
1320:
1316:
1308:
1304:
1294:
1290:
1282:
1278:
1267:
1263:
1254:
1252:
1245:
1244:
1240:
1235:
1231:
1224:
1220:
1206:
1205:
1201:
1189:
1185:
1180:
1176:
1167:
1165:
1158:
1157:
1153:
1143:
1141:
1133:
1132:
1128:
1123:
1119:
1107:
1098:
1088:
1086:
1078:
1077:
1073:
1063:
1061:
1053:
1052:
1048:
1014:
1010:
1002:
998:
986:
982:
974:
970:
958:
954:
946:
942:
936:Wayback Machine
924:
920:
910:
906:
896:
892:
882:
878:
874:
861:
851:According to a
849:
801:
795:
779:Alison Brimelow
726:
720:
690:
667:
660:Mobil Oil Corp.
651:
647:
644:
572:
499:
485:
423:
345:
317:
311:
255:
235:including some
212:granted by the
179:
74:TRIPS Agreement
58:List of patents
43:Software patent
12:
11:
5:
2445:
2443:
2435:
2434:
2429:
2419:
2418:
2412:
2411:
2409:
2408:
2400:
2392:
2384:
2376:
2368:
2359:
2357:
2343:
2342:
2340:
2339:
2337:United Kingdom
2334:
2329:
2324:
2319:
2314:
2309:
2304:
2299:
2294:
2289:
2284:
2279:
2274:
2269:
2264:
2259:
2254:
2249:
2244:
2239:
2234:
2229:
2224:
2219:
2214:
2209:
2204:
2199:
2194:
2189:
2184:
2179:
2177:Czech Republic
2174:
2169:
2164:
2159:
2154:
2149:
2143:
2141:
2135:
2134:
2132:
2131:
2126:
2121:
2116:
2111:
2106:
2099:
2097:Representation
2094:
2086:
2079:
2074:
2069:
2064:
2059:
2054:
2049:
2044:
2039:
2034:
2029:
2024:
2018:
2016:
2015:Related topics
2012:
2011:
2009:
2008:
2003:
1998:
1993:
1987:
1985:
1981:
1980:
1978:
1977:
1972:
1967:
1962:
1957:
1952:
1946:
1944:
1940:
1939:
1937:
1936:
1931:
1925:
1923:
1919:
1918:
1916:
1915:
1910:
1904:
1902:
1901:Founding texts
1898:
1897:
1892:
1890:
1889:
1882:
1875:
1867:
1861:
1860:
1855:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1818:
1795:
1771:
1770:External links
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:, pp. 212
1755:
1742:
1722:
1701:
1698:
1696:
1695:
1680:
1667:
1663:New York Times
1650:
1638:
1629:
1620:
1609:. UKcorporator
1595:
1578:
1564:
1550:
1536:
1522:
1505:
1494:
1472:
1470:17. April 2007
1459:
1446:
1433:
1420:
1374:
1357:
1345:
1329:
1314:
1302:
1288:
1276:
1269:Article 138(1)
1261:
1238:
1229:
1218:
1199:
1183:
1174:
1151:
1126:
1117:
1096:
1071:
1046:
1044:
1043:
1032:
1026:
1008:
996:
980:
968:
952:
940:
918:
904:
890:
875:
873:
870:
869:
868:
860:
857:
848:
845:
797:Main article:
794:
791:
756:Alain Pompidou
737:Enlarged Board
722:Main article:
719:
716:
699:unitary effect
689:
686:
643:
640:
634:as well as in
578:, in the case
571:
568:
533:Dyson v Hoover
498:
497:United Kingdom
495:
484:
481:
422:
419:
365:inventive step
344:
341:
310:
307:
277:
276:
273:
266:
263:
254:
251:
181:
180:
178:
177:
170:
163:
155:
152:
151:
150:
149:
141:
140:
139:Related topics
136:
135:
134:
133:
131:United Kingdom
128:
120:
119:
115:
114:
113:
112:
107:
105:United Kingdom
102:
94:
93:
89:
88:
87:
86:
81:
76:
68:
67:
63:
62:
61:
60:
55:
50:
45:
37:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2444:
2433:
2430:
2428:
2425:
2424:
2422:
2404:
2401:
2396:
2393:
2388:
2385:
2380:
2377:
2372:
2369:
2364:
2361:
2360:
2358:
2344:
2338:
2335:
2333:
2330:
2328:
2325:
2323:
2320:
2318:
2315:
2313:
2310:
2308:
2305:
2303:
2300:
2298:
2295:
2293:
2290:
2288:
2285:
2283:
2280:
2278:
2275:
2273:
2270:
2268:
2265:
2263:
2260:
2258:
2255:
2253:
2250:
2248:
2245:
2243:
2240:
2238:
2237:Liechtenstein
2235:
2233:
2230:
2228:
2225:
2223:
2220:
2218:
2215:
2213:
2210:
2208:
2205:
2203:
2200:
2198:
2195:
2193:
2190:
2188:
2185:
2183:
2180:
2178:
2175:
2173:
2170:
2168:
2165:
2163:
2160:
2158:
2155:
2153:
2150:
2148:
2145:
2144:
2142:
2136:
2130:
2127:
2125:
2122:
2120:
2117:
2115:
2112:
2110:
2107:
2105:
2104:
2100:
2098:
2095:
2093:
2092:
2087:
2085:
2084:
2080:
2078:
2075:
2073:
2070:
2068:
2065:
2063:
2060:
2058:
2055:
2053:
2050:
2048:
2045:
2043:
2040:
2038:
2035:
2033:
2030:
2028:
2025:
2023:
2020:
2019:
2017:
2013:
2007:
2004:
2002:
1999:
1997:
1994:
1992:
1991:Case Law book
1989:
1988:
1986:
1982:
1976:
1973:
1971:
1968:
1966:
1963:
1961:
1958:
1956:
1953:
1951:
1948:
1947:
1945:
1941:
1935:
1932:
1930:
1927:
1926:
1924:
1920:
1914:
1911:
1909:
1906:
1905:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1888:
1883:
1881:
1876:
1874:
1869:
1868:
1865:
1859:
1856:
1853:
1842:
1839:
1834:
1830:
1827:
1824:(15 min) and
1823:
1819:
1816:
1814:
1810:
1804:
1803:
1801:
1800:
1796:
1793:
1790:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1782:
1778:
1769:
1764:
1763:9780521868396
1760:
1756:
1753:
1749:
1748:
1743:
1740:
1729:
1728:
1723:
1720:
1719:0-7520-0633-9
1716:
1712:
1708:
1704:
1703:
1699:
1692:
1691:
1684:
1681:
1677:
1671:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1657:Paul Meller,
1654:
1651:
1647:
1642:
1639:
1633:
1630:
1624:
1621:
1605:
1599:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1582:
1579:
1574:
1568:
1565:
1560:
1554:
1551:
1546:
1540:
1537:
1532:
1526:
1523:
1515:
1509:
1506:
1503:
1498:
1495:
1487:
1481:
1479:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1463:
1460:
1456:
1450:
1447:
1443:
1437:
1434:
1430:
1424:
1421:
1416:
1410:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1383:
1381:
1379:
1375:
1372:
1367:
1361:
1358:
1354:
1349:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1333:
1330:
1327:
1323:
1318:
1315:
1311:
1306:
1303:
1299:
1298:
1292:
1289:
1285:
1280:
1277:
1273:
1270:
1265:
1262:
1250:
1249:
1242:
1239:
1233:
1230:
1227:
1222:
1219:
1214:
1210:
1203:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1187:
1184:
1178:
1175:
1163:
1162:
1155:
1152:
1139:
1138:
1130:
1127:
1121:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1105:
1103:
1101:
1097:
1084:
1083:
1075:
1072:
1059:
1058:
1050:
1047:
1041:
1036:
1033:
1030:
1027:
1024:
1020:
1017:
1016:
1012:
1009:
1005:
1000:
997:
993:
989:
984:
981:
977:
972:
969:
965:
961:
956:
953:
949:
944:
941:
937:
933:
930:
929:
922:
919:
916:
913:
912:Article 52(3)
908:
905:
902:
899:
898:Article 52(1)
894:
891:
888:
885:
880:
877:
871:
866:
863:
862:
858:
856:
854:
846:
844:
842:
838:
832:
830:
825:
823:
819:
813:
811:
806:
800:
792:
790:
788:
784:
783:patentability
780:
775:
771:
769:
765:
761:
757:
754:In response,
752:
749:
745:
740:
738:
734:
731:
725:
717:
715:
713:
708:
703:
700:
695:
687:
685:
683:
679:
675:
671:
665:
661:
657:
641:
639:
637:
633:
628:
626:
622:
618:
617:
612:
611:
605:
603:
599:
598:
593:
589:
588:
583:
582:
577:
569:
567:
564:
560:
559:
553:
551:
546:
542:
537:
535:
534:
528:
524:
522:
517:
515:
514:
509:
508:
503:
496:
494:
491:
482:
480:
476:
474:
468:
465:
461:
457:
453:
448:
446:
440:
438:
435:
430:
428:
420:
418:
413:
411:
407:
403:
396:
393:
387:
385:
379:
377:
373:
368:
366:
361:
354:
349:
342:
340:
336:
332:
330:
326:
322:
316:
308:
306:
304:
299:
297:
290:
288:
281:
274:
271:
267:
264:
261:
260:
258:
252:
250:
248:
244:
243:
238:
234:
230:
226:
221:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
196:
192:
188:
176:
171:
169:
164:
162:
157:
156:
154:
153:
148:
145:
144:
143:
142:
137:
132:
129:
127:
124:
123:
122:
121:
116:
111:
110:United States
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
95:
90:
85:
82:
80:
77:
75:
72:
71:
70:
69:
64:
59:
56:
54:
53:Free software
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
39:
38:
33:
29:
25:
24:
19:
16:
2113:
2101:
2090:
2082:
1812:
1808:
1798:
1774:
1773:
1746:
1725:
1706:
1689:
1683:
1670:
1653:
1641:
1632:
1623:
1611:. Retrieved
1598:
1581:
1567:
1553:
1539:
1533:(in French).
1525:
1508:
1497:
1491:(in French).
1462:
1449:
1436:
1423:
1409:cite journal
1392:
1389:"X ZB 11/98"
1360:
1355:, Reasons 13
1348:
1336:
1332:
1321:
1317:
1305:
1296:
1291:
1279:
1264:
1253:, retrieved
1247:
1241:
1232:
1221:
1212:
1202:
1186:
1177:
1166:, retrieved
1160:
1154:
1142:. Retrieved
1136:
1129:
1120:
1087:. Retrieved
1081:
1074:
1062:. Retrieved
1056:
1049:
1038:
1022:
1011:
999:
987:
983:
971:
959:
955:
950:, Article 31
943:
927:
921:
907:
893:
879:
850:
833:
826:
814:
804:
802:
776:
772:
753:
741:
727:
704:
691:
681:
678:Schlumberger
677:
669:
663:
659:
645:
635:
631:
629:
614:
608:
606:
601:
595:
591:
585:
579:
573:
556:
554:
549:
540:
538:
532:
529:
525:
520:
518:
512:
506:
500:
486:
477:
469:
449:
441:
431:
424:
415:
398:
389:
381:
369:
367:assessment.
356:
351:
346:
337:
333:
328:
318:
300:
292:
286:
283:
279:
269:
256:
240:
222:
197:
186:
184:
83:
15:
2352:validation
2327:Switzerland
2267:Netherlands
1975:Enforcement
1284:RIM v Inpro
1255:20 February
1213:www.epo.org
1168:20 February
652:(in French)
648:(in French)
2421:Categories
2346:Extension
2297:San Marino
2262:Montenegro
2247:Luxembourg
2062:Guidelines
1955:Opposition
1843:, section
1789:Article 52
1312:, para 101
1300:, para 129
1286:, para 185
1064:9 November
884:Article 52
872:References
847:Statistics
625:common law
313:See also:
247:patentable
233:inventions
204:under the
202:patentable
195:inventions
2242:Lithuania
2032:Espacenet
1943:Procedure
1144:12 August
1115:2008, 46.
1089:12 August
787:computing
621:civil law
563:prior art
456:insurance
452:marketing
321:prior art
92:Countries
2371:Cambodia
2312:Slovenia
2307:Slovakia
2287:Portugal
2162:Bulgaria
1984:Case law
1835:(20 min)
1829:Archived
1826:Module 2
1822:Module 1
1777:lobbying
1713:, 2000.
1353:T 154/04
1226:T 641/00
1035:T 928/03
1029:T 877/92
1019:T 115/85
932:Archived
859:See also
664:SA SAGEM
390:But the
376:T 154/04
372:T 258/03
237:software
118:Case law
66:Treaties
2403:Tunisia
2395:Morocco
2387:Moldova
2379:Georgia
2292:Romania
2222:Ireland
2217:Iceland
2212:Hungary
2202:Germany
2192:Finland
2187:Estonia
2182:Denmark
2167:Croatia
2157:Belgium
2152:Austria
2147:Albania
2027:epoline
839:or the
762:of the
682:Infomil
576:Germany
570:Germany
550:as such
402:writing
360:claimed
287:as such
242:de jure
210:patents
2356:states
2332:Turkey
2322:Sweden
2302:Serbia
2282:Poland
2277:Norway
2257:Monaco
2232:Latvia
2207:Greece
2197:France
2172:Cyprus
2140:states
1965:Appeal
1922:Organs
1761:
1717:
865:G 1/19
746:, the
728:Under
724:G 3/08
662:, and
642:France
404:using
100:Canada
48:Debate
35:Topics
2317:Spain
2252:Malta
2227:Italy
1852:, 3.6
1613:8 May
1607:(PDF)
1517:(PDF)
1489:(PDF)
1393:JurPC
1339:
1324:
990:
962:
676:. In
602:BPatG
410:paper
2057:Fees
1759:ISBN
1739:.2.4
1715:ISBN
1615:2007
1415:link
1257:2020
1170:2020
1146:2012
1091:2012
1066:2013
692:The
408:and
374:and
245:not
239:are
185:The
2406:(V)
2398:(V)
2390:(V)
2382:(V)
2374:(V)
2366:(E)
2354:(V)
2350:and
2348:(E)
1792:EPC
1397:doi
1272:EPC
915:EPC
901:EPC
887:EPC
733:EPC
600:or
592:BGH
590:or
574:In
539:In
462:or
454:or
437:EPC
406:pen
289:."
2423::
1850:ii
1811:,
1750:,
1709:,
1661:,
1589:,
1475:^
1411:}}
1407:{{
1391:.
1377:^
1211:.
1099:^
843:.
638:.
429:.
272:;
249:.
189:,
1886:e
1879:t
1872:v
1848:-
1846:g
1815:"
1807:"
1783:.
1737:a
1735:.
1733:i
1721:.
1678:.
1617:.
1575:.
1561:.
1547:.
1519:.
1417:)
1403:.
1399::
1215:.
1148:.
1093:.
1068:.
1042:"
1025:"
1006:.
174:e
167:t
160:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
