#UPC Court of Appeal aligns with the #EPO on mixed-type inventions and computer-implemented inventions.
A claim feature should not be left out of the inventive step assessment merely because, taken on its own, it may appear non technical, that is, a “non invention” under Art. 52(2) EPC.
A feature that is non-technical in itself may still contribute to the technical character of the claimed invention as a whole through its interaction with the other claim features.
So the assessment must consider the interrelationship and functioning of the claim features together.
That will sound familiar to anyone used to EPO practice under T 641/00, COMVIK, and the broader line of case law reflected in G 1/19.
Takeaway: In mixed-type inventions, the real question is whether, in the claimed combination, the feature contributes to a technical solution.
Abbot v. Sinocare UPC_CoA 901/2025
HEADNOTES
- A claim feature should not be excluded from the assessment of inventive step merely because it is
a non-technical feature, i.e. a feature which, on its own, would be considered a “non-invention”
under Art. 52(2) EPC. A feature that is non-technical as such may still contribute to the technical
character of the claimed invention as a whole by its interaction with the other claim features.
Therefore, the interrelationship and functioning of the claim features must be assessed together. - Pursuant to R. 220.1 RoP, only a party adversely affected by a decision may lodge an appeal. The
same applies to a cross-appeal pursuant to R. 237 RoP. A cross-appeal is inadmissible if the only
purpose of the cross-appeal is to change (a certain part of) the reasoning