Back in September 2010 the EPO-sponsored 15th European Patent Judge’s Symposium took place in Lisbon, where the judges discussed developments in European patent law. The symposium was attended by 120 patent judges from Europe and guests from the USA and Japan. A big issue of course was the EU patent and the related litigation system, but the related discussion is now meaningless in view of the recent developments in this regard. But there were other interesting topics discussed as well.
For instance, in a working session on “Patentability of Computer implemented inventions”, Mr. Dai Rees – Chairman of an EPO appeal board and member of the Enlarged Board of Appeals that issued the G3/08 opinion – outlined the developments of the respective EPO case law. His contribution is documented in an article in the conference proceedings: Special edition 1/2011 of EPO Office Journal (PDF, 5 MB), pp. 93 to 102. The below summary reflects my personal observations and understanding of Mr. Rees presentation and also contains some individual flavours and thoughts.
Relevant Provisions: As a reminder, the provisions of the EPC to be considered for computer programs or technicality issues not only involve Art 52 EPC (“programs for computers as such“), but also Articles 18, 19, 21, 22 and Rules 42(1)(a), (c), 43(1) and 44 EPC, which use the term “technical” in different contexts. Further, in the EPC 2000 revision, Art 52(1) EPC was clarified in that patents shall be granted for inventions “in all fields of technology”, which, however, was regarded as a clarification rather than a substantive amendment of the Convention.
Early Case Law: One of the early patentability tests applied was the so called “contribution approach”, as adopted e.g. in T 208/84 (VICOM), T 26/86 (Koch & Sterzel), or T 6/83 (Data processor network/IBM). According to this approach, a claim was refused as non-patentable subject-matter, if this claims contribution to prior art – by equally considering all of its features – exclusively lies in matters of Art 52 (2) EPC, such that the claim was considered having no “technical effect”.
According to the contribution approach, patentability was measured by the technical effect of the invention as compared to that of the prior art. For example, in T 208/84 and T 26/86 the claims differed from prior art by an implemented program that improved image quality and enabled longer maintenance intervals, respectively, which provided the required technical effect. If a technical effect different from that of prior art was not achieved, there was no “technical contribution” and the claim was considered non-patentable, like in T 52/85 (Listing of semantically related linguistic expressions/IBM), T 158/88 (Character form/Siemens) or T 603/89 (Marker/Beattie).
However, in a number of early cases (e.g. T 38/86 and T 65/86) it was already concluded the inventive contribution must lie in a “field of “technology” to prevent lack of an inventive step, thus paving the ground for today’s approach to patentability of software inventions.
Modern Case Law: T 1173/97 (Computer program product/IBM) clarified that program claims causing a technical effect upon execution are patentable without the necessity of claiming a carrier medium. This case also marked the end of the “contribution approach”, since it was concluded that the “technical effect” should not be decided in comparison with prior art but in an a priori assessment and that the “technical effect” requires something beyond the normal physical and electrical effects common to all executed programs, thus postulating a “further technical effect” requirement. The essential finding that programs are potentially patentable was then extended to functional data in general in T 163/85 (Colour television signal/BBC).
Now that the “technical contribution” has been moved to the assessment of inventive step by T 1173/97, a series of three decisions developed the “any technical means” approach for assessing the patentability requirements of Art 52 (2), (3) EPC. In T 931/95 (Pension benefit system) it was decided that a computer set up to carry out a program is potentially patentable regardless of whether the program was patentable itself. T 258/03 (Hitachi) extended this conclusion to methods of operating a computer, provided the method involved the use of technical means (the computer). Finally, T 424/03 (Microsoft) concluded that a claim directed to a program on a data carrier is potentially patentable as well, regardless of the fact that it also claimed the program. Consequently, according to the “any technical means” approach a claim can avoid exclusion on the basis of Art 52 (2) EPC by including a reference to an apparatus, e.g. a computer.
The problem-solution approach: The above-sketched development of modern case law, especially the suggestion in T 1173/97 that the “technical contribution” is an inventive step consideration and the observation in some early cases (e.g. T 38/86 and T 65/86) that the “inventive contribution” must lie in a “field of “technology”, almost naturally lead to the problem-solution approach as developed in T 641/00 (COMVIK) and T 258/03 (Hitachi) and theoretically justified in T 154/04 (Duns).
This approach nowadays is the crucial test to differentiate between a technical contribution implementing a non-technical concept (e.g. a business method) and an inventive contribution in a technical field (e.g. an embedded control software). Its general idea is that only the technical features of a claim may be taken into account for assessing inventive step, while the non-technical features form a basis for formulating the underlying problem, with the effect that the non-technical features may render the technical solution obvious.
The Enlarged Board’s G 3/08 opinion: In October 2008 the following four questions were referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) under Art 112 (1) (b) EPC by former EPO President Alison Brimelow (see FAQ).
- Can a computer program only be excluded as a computer program as such if it is explicitly claimed as a computer program?
- Can the exclusion be bypassed by tying the claimed invention to a piece of hardware?
- Must a claimed feature cause a technical effect in the real world in order to contribute to the technical character of the claim?
- Does the programming of a computer necessarily involve technical considerations?
In May 2010 the Enlarged Board issued its opinion. Even though the referral was considered inadmissible, the EBA commented on the four questions as obiter dictum and came to a number of substantive conclusions regarding patentability of software inventions.
Questions 1 and 2 asked for the role of the claim category and the claims as a whole, respectively, and related to the “any technical means” criterion (saying that it is sufficient to escape the Art. 52 EPC exclusion if any technical means is claimed) as specified in T 424/03. Even though there was found a slight inconsistency between the “any technical means” approach and T 1173/97, which rather stated that it is irrelevant for an exclusion from patentability whether the computer program is claimed directly or a data carrier having the program stored thereon, the EBA did not qualify this as a “divergence” within the meaning of Art. 112 (1) (b) EPC. The “any technical means” approach thus was confirmed.
Question 3 asked whether an individual feature of a claim must have “a technical effect on a physical entity [...] in order to contribute to the technical character of the claim” to be considered for inventive step. The EBA dismissed this question, since relevant case was seen fully consistent in the sense that all features of a claim are equally considered without any weighting or essentially assessment. As to the “technical effect on a physical entity”, the EBA pointed out that individual features relating to excluded subject-matters may nonetheless contribute to the technical character of a claim and thus cannot be discarded for inventive step considerations, as already stated, although within another context, in T 208/84.
Question 4 made the point that certain decisions regarded programming as necessarily involving technical considerations while others found that programming was a mental activity and thus excluded under Art. 52 (2) EPC. The EBA argued that a claim to a mental act could be rejected even if that mental act involved technical considerations – and dismissed this question as well, while simultaneously admitting that there at least has been some potential for confusion, since some decisions, e.g. T 769/92 (Sohei), might have given the impression that technical considerations by the inventor were sufficient to guarantee the technical character of a claim. In order to establish consistency with T 1173/97, the EBA took the position that “further technical considerations”, i.e. considerations beyond that of formulating an algorithm executable on an unspecified computer, are required to lift a claim over the hurdle of Art. 52 EPC.
Conclusion: As can be concluded from the above, the legal development in this crucial question did not always go linearly and some approaches were abandoned or modified throughout the years. However, since the G 3/08 opinion basically affirmed the status quo, i.e. the pragmatic problem-solution approach as sketched in T 641/00 (COMVIK) and T 258/03 (Hitachi), case law has reached a rather stable situation, providing legal certainty for applicants of software inventions. Thus, in this particular question, Europe appears to be one step ahead of the US and other important patent jurisdictions in the world.
Volker 'Falk' Metzler
European Patent Attorney, German 'Patentanwalt', European Trademark and Design Attorney, Computer Scientist, PhD, IP Blogger, Father of Two, Mountain Enthusiast
The k/s/n/h::law blog
Some of the patent attorneys of the KSNH law firm have joined their efforts to research what is going on in the various branches of IP law and practice in order to keep themselves, their clients as well as interested circles of the public up to date. This blog is intended to present results of such efforts to a wider public.
- November 2013 (2)
- October 2013 (1)
- September 2013 (1)
- August 2013 (2)
- July 2013 (3)
- June 2013 (5)
- March 2013 (5)
- February 2013 (4)
- January 2013 (5)
- December 2012 (5)
- November 2012 (5)
- July 2012 (5)
- June 2012 (8)
- May 2012 (5)
- April 2012 (3)
- March 2012 (4)
- February 2012 (5)
- January 2012 (6)
- December 2011 (12)
- November 2011 (9)
- October 2011 (9)
- September 2011 (4)
- August 2011 (7)
- July 2011 (4)
- June 2011 (1)
- business methods (6)
- EPC (7)
- EPO (12)
- EU law (92)
- European Patent Law (37)
- German Patent ACt (PatG) (1)
- German patent law (5)
- Germany (6)
- Pirate Party (3)
- International Patent Law (4)
- PCT (2)
- IP politics (10)
- licenses (2)
- Litigation (5)
- Patentability (7)
- Patents (12)
- Piratenpartei (2)
- Software inventions (10)
- Uncategorized (9)
- Unitary Patent (24)
- US Patent Law (4)
- kelle on Germany: Copyright Protection More Easily Available For Works Of “Applied Arts”
- Time Limits & Deadlines in Draft UPCA RoP: Counting The Days - KSNH Law - Intangible.Me on Wiki Edition of Agreement on Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA)
- Time Limits & Deadlines in Draft UPCA RoP: Counting The Days | ksnh::law on Wiki Edition of Agreement on Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA)
- Wiki Edition of Agreement on Unified Patent Cou... on Wiki Edition of Agreement on Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA)
- European Commission Takes Next Step Towards Legalising Software Patents in Europe | Techrights on EU Commission publishes Proposal of amendend Brussels I Regulation for ensuring Enforcement of UPC Judgements
- No public Twitter messages.
- Ist Verschlüsselung passé? September 6, 2013Auf verschiedenen Feldern beruflicher Praxis ist dafür zu sorgen, dass Kommunikation vertraulich bleibt. Die trifft beispielsweise für Ärzte zu, aber auch für Anwälte, darunter auch Patentanwälte. Einer der zahlreichen Aspekte, die in diesem Zusammenhang eine Rolle spielen, ist die Technik, um die Vertraulichkeit beruflicher Kommunikation sicherzustellen. Wa […]
- EU-Einheitspatent: Demonstrativer Optimismus und Zahlenmystik allerorten – Naivität oder politische Beeinflussung? June 26, 2013Nach mehreren vergeblichen Anläufen zur Schaffung eines EU-weiten Patentsystems wurde 1973 als Kompromiss das Europäische Patentübereinkommen unterzeichnet, welches unabhängig von der seinerzeit noch EWG genannten Europäischen Union System zur zentralisierten Patenterteilung mit nachgeordnetem Einspruchsverfahren durch das Europäische Patentamt schuf. Wie wi […]
- Moderne Zeiten oder: DPMA und Patentgericht streiten über die elektronische Akte April 25, 2013Bekanntlich hat das Deutsche Patent- und Markenamt (DPMA) im Jahre 2013 mit der rein technischen Fertigstellung der Einrichtungen zur elektronischen Akteneinsicht einen wichtigen Meilenstein seines Überganges von der Papierakte zur “elektronischen Akte” erreicht. Im DPMA werden aber bereits seit dem 01. Juni 2011 Patente, Gebrauchsmuster, Topografien und erg […]
- Gutachten zu Forschung, Innovation und technologischer Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands 2013 March 11, 2013Unter dem Datum vom 28. Februar 2013 ist die Bundestags-Drucksache 17/12611 veröffentlicht worden Sie trägt den Titel Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung - Gutachten zu Forschung, Innovation und technologischer Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands 2013. Die Bundesregierung legt dem Deutschen Bundestag seit dem Jahr 2008 […]
- 3D-Printing: Zum Filesharing von 3D-Modelldaten February 25, 2013In meiner kleinen zuvor angekündigten Reihe über rechtliche Aspekte des 3D Printing komme ich heute auf die Frage zu sprechen, ob die Hersteller von Gerätschaften es hinnehmen müssen, wenn Ersatztreile davon – vom Brillengestell über Smartphone-Gehäuseteile bis hin zu Rastenmähermotor-Abdeckungen – gescannt und die daraus […]
- Ist Verschlüsselung passé? September 6, 2013