EPO: Enlarged Board considers patentability of simulations
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 2023

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

EPO: Enlarged Board considers patentability of simulations

Sponsored by


Peter Koefoed of Inspicos P/S explains the findings of a recent decision concerning the inventiveness of computer-implemented simulation methods

The Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) has issued its long-awaited decision in Case No. G1/19 concerning assessment of inventive step of computer-implemented simulation methods.

The patent application in suit relates to simulation of the movement of a pedestrian through an environment with a view to design a building where a crowd can move efficiently.

In examination, the EPO found the claimed invention to lack inventive step, arguing that a simulation does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The refusal was appealed (T 0489/14) and the referring board asked the EBA to clarify whether a computer-implemented simulation can provide a technical effect going beyond the computer-implementation and, in the affirmative, what criteria to apply for determining this technical effect. A third question was whether it makes a difference if the simulation is claimed as part of a design process.

Referencing the COMVIK decision (T 641/00), the EBA confirmed that simulation methods may be patentable if an inventive step can be based on features contributing to the technical character of the claim over its entire scope (a claim is not inventive, if it specifies a method that may be used without a technical purpose).

The EBA did not specify the assessment criteria for technical character, but decided that the technicality of the simulated system/model does not necessarily have an impact on inventive step of a claim; the technical character can be derived from a subsequent use of the outcome of the simulation method. In that case the subsequent use must at least be an implicit feature in the claim.

The EBA also confirmed that these principles also apply if the claim relates to a design process.

In summary, applicants can rely on the existing principles (COMVIK) for assessment of inventive of computer-implemented invention also for computer-implemented simulation methods.


Peter KoefoedPartner, Inspicos P/SE: pko@inspicos.com  

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Sources debate the implications of an opinion by Delaware’s chief judge Colm Connolly that lambasted the NPE IP Edge
Five partners reveal how delays in examining trademark applications are affecting their advice to clients and how they pitch new work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Partners at Quinn Emanuel explain how walkie-talkie and real-estate analogies helped them win over a jury at the Eastern District of Texas
The heads of Malaysian firm HHQ’s new technology practice group say they can be frontline advisers on the intersection between AI, blockchain, and IP
Darren Jiron, Finnegan’s managing partner in London, discusses the firm’s growth plans and misconceptions about US firm culture
The EMEA region research cycle has commenced - do not miss this opportunity to nominate your work from 2023!
A former partner at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, which voted to dissolve in October, has joined McCarter & English
As ChatGPT celebrates its first birthday, we are still grappling with a multitude of IP concerns
Sources say an official role at an IP industry body is great for generating business leads, but that shouldn’t be the only motivation behind taking on the responsibility