The EPO approach to Computer Implemented Inventions (CII) Yannis Skulikaris Director Operations, Information and Communications Technology

Similar documents
Patenting Software-related Inventions according to the European Patent Convention

11th Annual Patent Law Institute

US Bar EPO Liaison Council 29th Annual Meeting Munich, 18 October EPO practice issues

Note concerning the Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions

Examination of CII and Business Methods Applications

Computer-implemented inventions under the EPC in the light of the Opinion of the EBA G 3/08

Patent protection on Software. Software as an asset for technology transfer 29 September 2015

The European Patent Office

Proper Drafting of Rejection Rulings

Questionnaire May 2003 Q Scope of Patent Protection. Response of the UK Group

RECENT CASE LAW OF THE EPO REGARDING SOFTWARE/BUSINESS METHOD- RELATED INVENTIONS

AIPPI Study Question - Patentability of computer implemented inventions

How patents work An introduction for law students

Mateo Aboy, PhD (c) Mateo Aboy, PhD - Aboy & Associates, PC

Allowability of disclaimers before the European Patent Office

SUCCESSFUL MULTILATERAL PATENTS Focus on Europe

Working Guidelines Q217. The patentability criteria for inventive step / non-obviousness

Suzannah K. Sundby. canady + lortz LLP. David Read. Differences between US and EU Patent Laws that Could Cost You and Your Startup.

Uncertainty for computer program patents after the Astron Clinica and Symbian judgments of 2008

The National Center of Intellectual Property Belarus. Contents

AIPPI Study Question - Patentability of computer implemented inventions

CA/PL 7/99 Orig.: German Munich, SUBJECT: Revision of the EPC: Articles 52(4) and 54(5) President of the European Patent Office

EUROPEAN COMMISSION COMMUNITY PATENT CONSULTATION COMPTIA S RESPONSES BRUSSELS, 18 APRIL

Frequently Asked Questions. Trade/service marks: What is a trade/service mark?

The European Patent Office An overview on the procedures before the EPO: up to grant, opposition and appeal

Criteria for Patentability

AIPPI Study Question - Patentability of computer implemented inventions

Major Differences Between Prosecution at EPO and JPO

Ericsson Position on Questionnaire on the Future Patent System in Europe

AIPPI Study Question - Patentability of computer implemented inventions

From Law of Patents, Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits, Plant Varieties, and Industrial Designs, Chapter Two:

The methods and procedures described must be directly applicable to production.

Inventive Step. Japan Patent Office

Patent litigation. Block 1. Module Priority. Essentials: Priority. Introduction

Software patenting in a state of flux

The opposition procedure and limitation and revocation procedures

Examination Matters 2017 Webinars

SOFTWARE PATENTS V3.0: THE UNITARY PATENT

Unity of inventions at the EPO - Amendments to rule 29 EPC

Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights. The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of:

EPO Decision G 1/15 on Partial Priorities and Toxic Divisionals: Relief and Risks

Update on the patentability of inventions concerning plants and animals under the EPC SUMMARY

Part II. Time limit for completing the International search. Application not searched

2015 Noréns Patentbyrå AB

[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights

Highlights from the European Patent Office

SHORT GUIDE ON PATENTS

COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT TRILATERAL PROJECT 12.4 INVENTIVE STEP - 1 -

[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights

Understanding and Utilization of the ISR and WOISA. Shunsuke YAMAMOTO Examination Standards Office Japan Patent Office

QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE PATENT SYSTEM IN EUROPE. 1.1 Do you agree that these are the basic features required of the patent system?

AIPPI FORUM Berlin. September 25, Session V: Does the EPO grant trivial patents? Should the level of inventive step be increased?

Intellectual Property Department Hong Kong, China. Contents

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group

ROMANIA Patent Law NO.64/1991 OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF ROMANIA, PART I, NO.613/19 AUGUST 2014

Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights. The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of:

Section 1: General. This question does not imply that the topic of exclusions from patentability is dealt with in this question exhaustively.

Patents Bill 2008: Patentability of Computer Programs

THE PATENTABILITY OF COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED INVENTIONS. Consultation Paper by the Services of the Directorate General for the Internal Market

The European patent system

13345/14 BB/ab 1 DG G3

Guidelines for completing a Knowledge Development Box (KDB) Certificate Application

Second medical use or indication claims

Aligning claim drafting and filing strategies to optimize protection in the EPO, GPTO and USPTO

FOCUS ON EUROPE. Successful Multilateral Patents Workshop June 26, 2007 GWILYM ROBERTS European Patent Attorney Kilburn & Strode

should disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art

Added matter under the EPC. Chris Gabriel Examiner Directorate 1222

General Information Concerning. of IndusTRIal designs

SWEDEN PATENTS ACT No.837 of 1967 in the version in force from July 1, 2014

AIPPI Study Question - Patentability of computer implemented inventions

Axel H. Horns Patentanwalt European TM Attorney European Patent Attorney

FINLAND Patents Act No. 550 of December 15, 1967 as last amended by Act No. 101/2013 of January 31, 2013 Enter into force on 1 September 2013

The Patents Act 1977 (as amended)

THE ACTS ON AMENDMENTS TO THE PATENT ACT */**/***/****/*****/******/*******

RESPONSE TO. Questionnaire. On the patent system in Europe INTRODUCTION

PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT)

[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights

Indonesian Group Answers to Questionnaire

TREATY SERIES 2008 Nº 4. Act revising the Convention on the Grant of European Patents

Summary Report Study Question Patents. Patentability of computer implemented inventions

RUSSIA Patent Law #3517-I of September 23, 1992, as amended by the federal law 22-FZ of February 7, 2003 ENTRY INTO FORCE: March 11, 2003

OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF ROMANIA, PART I, NO.613/19 AUGUST 2014 REPUBLICATION PATENT LAW NO.64/1991 1

Patent Law in Cambodia

Slide 13 What rights does a patent confer?

Basic Legal Questions for Pre-Exam and Paper D

Amendments. Closa Daniel Beaucé Gaëtan 26-30/11/2012

[English translation by WIPO] Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights

FUTURE PATENT POLICY IN EUROPE PUBLIC HEARING 12 JULY European Commission "Charlemagne" Room S3 Rue de la Loi 170 Brussels REPORT

17229/09 LK/mg 1 DG C I

Table 1: General overview of the PCT procedure Legend:

ETHIOPIA A PROCLAMATION CONCERNING INVENTIONS, MINOR INVENTIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS PROCLAMATION NO. 123/1995 ENTRY INTO FORCE: May 10, 1995

Law on the protection of inventions No. 50/2008 of the Republic of Moldova can be found at:

CHAPTER 2 AUTHORS AND PATENT OWNERS Article 5. Author of the Invention, Utility Model, and Industrial Design Article 6.

What is a Computer-Implemented Invention?

EUROPEAN COMMISSION PHARMACEUTICAL SECTOR INQUIRY PRELIMINARY REPORT - 28 November 2008 COMMENTS FROM THE EPO

COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT INVENTIVE STEP (JPO - KIPO - SIPO)

Topic 12: Priority Claims and Prior Art

MALAYSIA IP HANDBOOK

Study Guidelines Study Question. Conflicting patent applications

Questionnaire on Exceptions and Limitations to Patent Rights. The answers to this questionnaire have been provided on behalf of:

Transcription:

The EPO approach to Computer Implemented Inventions (CII) Yannis Skulikaris Director Operations, Information and Communications Technology March 2018

Background and context The EPO s approach to CII: fulfills the legal requirements of the EPC and is fit for purpose, i.e. supports industry and fosters economic growth is workable, examiners apply the EPO approach in a harmonized way in all technical areas in an efficient and targeted manner can be readily understood by users results in predictable outcomes for users 2

The EPO s legal framework Art. 52 EPC states that inventions shall be granted in "all fields of technology. However, some subject matter is not eligible for protection when claimed as such, for instance: discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods; aesthetic creations; schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers; presentations of information; 3

Technical character The subject-matter for which protection is sought must have a "technical character" i.e. it must show a technically skilled person how to solve a technical problem using technical means. The problem solved by the invention must be technical, in contrast to for example a purely financial, commercial or mathematical one. Legal basis: The description must specify the technical field of the invention and disclose the invention so that the technical problem and its solution can be understood (Rule 42 EPC) Subject matter for which protection is sought must be defined in terms of technical features of the invention (Rule 43 EPC) Case law of EPO Boards of Appeal, e.g. T1173/97, T641/00, T258/03 4

Examples of technical and non-technical subject matter Technical control of an ABS system (vehicle Anti-blocking Brake System) implementation of a ground collision avoidance system in an aircraft balancing of computing load in a network of computers Non-technical a method of teaching a foreign language a pyramid sales promotion scheme, a method to optimize an investment portfolio a method to minimize tax due 5

The EPO Approach Claimed subject matter Hurdle 1 Does the subject matter contain features that have a technical character? NO Claimed subject matter is not an invention according to Art. 52(2)(3) YES Features considered to be technical are examined for novelty and inventive step YES Hurdle 2 Preparation for novelty and inventive step assessment. Analyse each feature of the claim and ask: is it technical? NO Non-technical features cannot be used to confer novelty or inventive step 6

Conclusions Inventions having a technical character that are or may be implemented by a computer program are not excluded from patentability Applicant cannot rely on non-technical features in the claim to support inventive step EPO CII practice is developed in interaction with stakeholders (epi, SACEPO) and described in the Guidelines, such that applicant can argue efficiently and examination result is predictable EPO approach is highly interactive, EPO examiner is receptive to applicant s argumentation, giving applicant the benefit of the doubt EPO Guidelines adapted to provide for technology developments and to reflect relevant case law better 7

Outlook Follow-up on trilateral CII comparative study (feedback from industry, clarity on Trilateral practices, informing stakeholders globally) 2nd EPO scoping workshop on Artificial Intelligence, 14 March 2018, as a follow up to the 1st EPO scoping workshop with industry on Artificial Intelligence and Cloud Computing (November 2017) EPO conference on Patenting of Artificial Intelligence, 30 May 2018 epo.org/ai2018 8