Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 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

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

Counsel are eying domestic industry, concurrent PTAB proceedings and heightened scrutiny of cases before institution
Jack Daniel’s has a good chance of winning its dispute over dog toys, but SCOTUS will still want to protect free speech, predict sources
AI users and lawyers discuss why the rulebook for registering AI-generated content may create problems and needs further 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
A technical effect must still be evident in the original patent filing, the EBoA said in its G2/21 decision today, March 23
Brands should not be deterred from pursuing lookalike producers, and an unfair advantage claim could be the key, say Emma Teichmann and Geoff Steward at Stobbs
Justice Mellor’s highly anticipated ruling surprised SEP owners and reassured implementers that the UK may not be so hostile after all
The England and Wales High Court's judgment comes ahead of a separate hearing concerning one of the patents-in-suit at the EPO
While the rules allow foreign firms to open local offices and offer IP services, a ban on litigation and practising Indian law could mean little will change
A New York federal court heard oral arguments this week in a copyright case pitting publishing giants against a digital library