Summary
| G 1/19 | ||
|---|---|---|
 Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office | ||
| ECLI:EP:BA:2021:G000119.20210310 Decision issued on 10 March 2021 | ||
| Board composition | ||
| ||
| Headwords | ||
|
G 1/19 is a decision issued by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) on 10 March 2021, which deals with the patentability of computer-implemented simulations.[1][2]
Background edit
The case, triggered by decision T 489/14 issued on 22 February 2019 by Board of Appeal 3.5.07, deals with a European patent application relating to "a computer-implemented method, computer program and apparatus for simulating the movement of a pedestrian crowd through an environment".[3][4] "The main purpose of the simulation is its use in a process for designing a venue such as a railway station or a stadium".[5][4] While Board 3.5.07 acknowledged the analogy with case T 1227/05 (Circuit simulation I/Infineon Technologies)[6] (in which the specific mathematical steps involved in a computer-implemented simulation of an electrical circuit subject to noise were found to contribute to the technical character of the invention),[7] which supported the applicant's case,[8] the Board did not agree with the conclusion reached by the deciding Board in T 1227/05.[4] Eventually, considering this to be a question of fundamental importance, Board 3.5.07 decided to refer three questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.
The questions edit
The three questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal are:
- "In the assessment of inventive step, can the computer-implemented simulation of a technical system or process solve a technical problem by producing a technical effect which goes beyond the simulation's implementation on a computer, if the computer-implemented simulation is claimed as such?
- If the answer to the first question is yes, what are the relevant criteria for assessing whether a computer-implemented simulation claimed as such solves a technical problem? In particular, is it a sufficient condition that the simulation is based, at least in part, on technical principles underlying the simulated system or process?
- What are the answers to the first and second questions if the computer-implemented simulation is claimed as part of a design process, in particular for verifying a design?"
Amicus curiae and oral proceedings edit
Oral proceedings took place before the Enlarged Board of Appeal on July 15, 2020.[9] The oral proceedings were live streamed over the internet.[9] Additionally, third parties were given the opportunity to file written statements after the initial referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal, to be considered as part of these oral proceedings, resulting in the filing of 23 amicus curiae briefs.[10]
Decision edit
The Enlarged Board of Appeal held "that existing case law regarding computer-implemented inventions also applies to computer-implemented simulations", and it retained "its established approach in assessing inventive step, known as the COMVIK approach".[2]
See also edit
- G 3/08, referral relating to the patentability of programs for computers (referral held to be inadmissible for lack of divergent case law)
References edit
- ^ "Referrals pending before the Enlarged Board of Appeal". epo.org. European Patent Office. Retrieved 30 March 2019.
- ^ a b Sandys, Amy (11 March 2021). "Enlarged Board of Appeal releases G 1/19 decision on patenting computer simulations". JUVE Patent. Juve Patent. Retrieved 12 March 2021.
- ^ Decision T 489/14 (Pedestrian simulation/CONNOR) of 22.2.2019, Reasons 2, first paragraph.
- ^ a b c King, Scott; Hoyles, Matthew (February 28, 2019). "Computer implemented simulations referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal". Kluwer Patent Blog. Kluwer Law International. Retrieved March 25, 2019.
- ^ T 489/14, Reasons 2, third paragraph.
- ^ T 489/14, Reasons 14, first paragraph.
- ^ Decision T 1227/05 (Circuit simulation I/Infineon Technologies) of 13.12.2006
- ^ T 489/14, Reasons 15, first paragraph.
- ^ a b "Oral proceedings in case G 1/19 before the Enlarged Board of Appeal". epo.org. Haar: Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office. 1 July 2020. Retrieved 4 July 2020.
- ^ "G1/19: amicus curiae briefs". epo.org. Haar: Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office. 15 July 2020. Retrieved 16 July 2020.
Further reading edit
- Moufang, Rainer (2018). "Zur Patentierung von Entwurfs- und Simulationsverfahren in der EPA-Rechtsprechung" [On the Patenting of Design and Simulation Procedures in EPO Jurisprudence]. GRUR Int (in German) (12): 1146–1151.
- Teschemacher, Rudolf (March 6, 2019). "EPO – Enlarged Board of Appeal asked to decide on the patentability of computer-implemented simulation programs". EPLAW Patent Blog. EPLAW - European Patent Lawyers Association. Retrieved March 25, 2019.
- Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO (10th edition, July 2022), i.a.2.4.6.b : "Establishing technical character - direct link to physical reality"
- Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO (10th edition, July 2022), i.a.2.4.6.c : "Establishing technical character - potential technical effect"
- Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO (10th edition, July 2022), i.a.2.4.6.d : "Establishing technical character - virtual or "calculated" technical effect"
- Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO (10th edition, July 2022), i.a.2.4.6.e : "Establishing technical character - tangible technical effect"
- Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO (10th edition, July 2022), i.a.2.4.6.i : "Establishing technical character - computer-implemented simulation methods"
- Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO (10th edition, July 2022), i.d.2 : "Inventive step - problem and solution approach"
- Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO (10th edition, July 2022), i.d.4.1 : "Inventive step - technical problem - determination of the objective technical problem in general"
- Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO (10th edition, July 2022), i.d.4.2 : "Inventive step - technical problem - formulation of the objective technical problem"
- Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO (10th edition, July 2022), i.d.9.2.11.b : "Inventive step - assessment of features relating to mathematical algorithms - simulations"
- Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO (10th edition, July 2022), iii.h.1.2 : "The Vienna Convention on the law of treaties - application of the rules of interpretation"
- Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO (10th edition, July 2022), iii.h.4.3 : "Impact of national decisions on the case law of the boards of appeal - national decisions: no binding effect on the boards of appeal"
- Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO (10th edition, July 2022), v.b.2.3.7 : "Referral by a board of appeal - point of law of fundamental importance"
External links edit
- Decision G 1/19 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of 10 March 2021
- Decision T 489/14 (Pedestrian simulation/CONNOR) of 22 February 2019 (referring decision)