Spain: Software in the light of the new Spanish patent law
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Spain: Software in the light of the new Spanish patent law

Much water has flowed under the bridge since 1986, yet the law regulating the patentability of software remains the same. A close look at the new guidelines for examination in the Spanish Patent and Trade Mark Office (OEPM) shows that those aspects concerning patentability remain the same as in the original Guidelines … so we may give it a big yes, nothing has changed.

At the OEPM, formal and technical examinations are carried out at the same time; so, on the one hand computer programs may be a form of computer-implemented inventions while, on the other hand, computer programs are included in the list of exclusions.

In the light of new Spanish patent law, computer programs are still excluded but as for the other elements of that list, the scope of exclusion is limited; that is, only the exclusion of the invention applies insofar as the object for protection as claimed comprises one of said inventions as such. Thus, the Spanish law expressly allows methods to be carried by a programmable devices or systems as long as the computer program is capable of producing, when running in the corresponding programmable device or system, a further technical effect that goes beyond those normal physical effects implicit to the device or system themselves; this is the so called further technical effect we may find in the guidelines for examination in the European Patent Office on GII, 3.6.

Nonetheless, we may still find claims comprising both technical and no technical features. In this regard the new guidelines for examination in the OEPM state that the implementation of an invention, considered for other reasons not intrinsically patentable, using physical elements or technical means, does not alter the essence of the invention. Hence, the mere use of technical means for the implementation of an excluded invention from patentability does not necessarily give the essential technical nature which averts that exclusion.

Since the nature of the invention in view of the exclusions to patentability is examined at the same time as the formal examination is carried out, we are not going to receive a search report with a written opinion regarding those aspects that are deemed to be an invention.

This is still a problem with the new law and the corresponding guidelines for examination in Spain: claims comprising technical and non-technical features (mixed claims) may not pass the first filter at the OEPM.

robledo.jpg

Ignacio Robledo


PONS IPGlorieta Rubén Darío, 428010 – Madrid SpainTel: +34 917007600Fax: +34 913086103clientes@pons.eswww.ponsip.com

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

High-earning businesses place most value on the depth of the external legal teams advising them, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
Kilpatrick Townsend was recognised as Americas firm of the year, while patent powerhouse James Haley won a lifetime achievement award
Partners at Foley Hoag and Kilburn & Strode explore how US and UK courts have addressed questions of AI and inventorship
In-house lawyers have considerable influence over law firms’ actions, so they must use that power to push their external advisers to adopt sustainable practices
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel say they’re advising clients to keep a close eye on confidentiality agreements after the FTC voted to ban non-competes
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows US firms making major swoops for IP teams, while South Korea has also been a buoyant market
The finalists for the 13th annual awards have been announced
Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Gift this article