EPO Enlarged Board: computer simulations can be patented

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

EPO Enlarged Board: computer simulations can be patented

epo-600-comp.jpg

Case G1/19, before the Enlarged Board of Appeal, attracted a flurry of interest from patent owners and industry associations

The EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal has handed down an eagerly awaited decision that the established case law on computer-implemented inventions also applies to simulations.

In a decision published today, March 10, the EBoA found that just like any other computer-implemented invention, numerical simulations may be patentable.

According to the EBoA, patentability requires an inventive step based on features contributing to the technical character of the claimed simulation method.

In advance of today’s decision, in-house counsel told Managing IP that a decision to make simulation non-patentable could have had broader repercussions on patenting computer-implemented inventions.

It would have also damaged European industries that either create simulations or increasingly rely on software to test physical processes and methods before they are implemented, counsel added.

The case concerns a patent application (03793825.5) by an individual called James Douglas Connor.

The invention concerns simulation of pedestrian movement that can then be used to help design or modify venues such as a railway station or a stadium. The patent claims to provide a realistic simulation, in real-world situations, which cannot be modelled by conventional simulators.

In February 2019, the EPO rejected the application. After the refusal, the applicant appealed to the EPO’s Technical Board of Appeal, which referred questions to the EBoA.

More than 20 amicus curiae were filed with the EBoA from companies including IBM, Siemens and Philips, as well as from industry associations including AIPPI, the IP Federation and the European Patent Institute.

Managing IP will provide a full analysis of the decision in due course.

 

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Lawyers at Lavoix provide an overview of the UPC’s approach to inventive step and whether the forum is promoting its own approach rather than following the EPO
Andrew Blattman, who helped IPH gain significant ground in Asia and Canada, will leave in the second half of 2026
The court ordering a complainant to rank its arguments in order of potential success and a win for Edwards Lifesciences were among the top developments in recent weeks
Frederick Lee has rejoined Boies Schiller Flexner, bolstering the firm’s capabilities across AI, media, and entertainment
Nirav Desai and Sasha S Rao at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox explore how companies’ efforts to manage tariffs by altering corporate structures can undermine their ability to assert their patents and recover damages
Monika Żuraw, founder of Żuraw & Partners, discusses why IP should be part of the foundation of a business, and taking on projects that others walk away from
Lawyers say attention will turn to the UK government’s AI consultation after judgment fails to match pre-trial hype
Susan Keston and Rachel Fetches at HGF explain why the CoA’s decision to grant the UPC’s first permanent injunction demonstrates the court’s readiness to diverge from national court judgments
IP, M&A, life sciences and competition partners advised on deal that brings together brands such as ‘Huggies’ and ‘Kleenex’ with ‘Band-Aid’ and ‘Tylenol’
Stability AI, represented by Bird & Bird, is not liable for secondary copyright infringement, though Fieldfisher client Getty succeeds in some trademark claims
Gift this article