EPO: Enlarged Board considers patentability of simulations
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

EPO: Enlarged Board considers patentability of simulations

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px.png
nick-hnwlli4zzri-unsplash.jpg

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

An intimate understanding of a client’s sector is essential to winning new business, a survey of over 28,000 corporate counsel reveals
Counsel say a Federal Circuit ruling on the obviousness test for design patents may increase the time IP owners spend defending their rights
While the INTA Annual Meeting is over for another year, here are a few things Managing IP learned after attending IP’s biggest party
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Four sources reveal which tools they have been using – or building – to help them with a range of tasks from invention generation to claim sufficiency
Managing IP reveals Wednesday's highlights, including a discussion on how AI is helping lawyers improve their "gut instinct" trademark decisions
Managing IP reveals Tuesday’s highlights, including an illuminating discussion celebrating women in the workplace and the challenges that remain
Dana Northcott, INTA’s 2024 president and associate general counsel for Amazon's IP team, talks about her work for the association
Managing IP reveals highlights from the INTA Annual Meeting, including law firms’ diversity and ESG concerns and a new beginning for a Chinese firm
Firms with a broad geographic reach are more likely to win work, especially from global companies with high turnovers, according to survey data of nearly 29,000 corporate counsel
Gift this article