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

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Partner Rob Jacob unveils plans to offer a beginning-to-end trademark service, how to make prosecution profitable, and why IP ‘buy-in’ from the CEO stands the firm in good stead
Sponsored by CAS
CAS provides practical pointers on how intellectual property and R&D teams can work in tandem to unlock tangible benefits and avoid wasted spend
Sponsored by CAS
CAS explores how AI is transforming intellectual property, from inventorship and copyright disputes to new demands on patent attorneys
Sponsored by That.Legal
Gillian Tan of That.Legal discusses a recent decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and what it reveals about the evidential burden in bad-faith trademark claims
Attorneys at Di Blasi, Parente & Associados share how the protection of trade secrets strengthens innovation by bringing together legal practice, regulatory developments, and established international references
Jin Ooi, who joins as a partner today, said he is excited to offer a ‘rounded’ IP service as the firm deepens its litigation expertise in the UK and Europe
As generics celebrate, practitioners believe innovator companies should brace for an ‘uphill battle’ when trying to prove induced infringement
A team from Cooley shares how they overturned a massive damages award by emphasising that the opposing company’s trade secrets claims were time-barred
Sponsored by Licks Attorneys
Eduardo Hallak, Rafaella Oliveira, and Laís Souza of Licks Attorneys explain how the provision operates in practice, highlighting evidential hurdles and best practices for patent applicants
Sponsored by Liu, Shen & Associates
Chunyu Cui and Ziqing Wu of Liu, Shen & Associates say recent trends in China’s intellectual property courts indicate alignment with international standards and send a clear signal to the global market
Gift this article