Category: EPO
UPC Court of Appeal Aligns with EPO on mixed-type inventions and CII
#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
Submission considered but incorrect reasoning vs Submission not considered – Review Petition R 0005/24
#EPO: Petitions for review rarely succeed before the Enlarged Board of Appeal, so if one does, it is time to do a quick summary, below: 𝐅𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬: • The opponent appealed, and with its reply, the patentee filed Auxiliary Request 2. • In its preliminary opinion, the Board considered that the amendment had not been sufficiently
Patenting GUI at the EPO – User interface is not always merely “user requirement” – T 0035/20 (Double Press to Pay/Apple)
#SoftwarePatent: Patenting of hashtag#GUI features at the hashtag#EPO.A nice reminder that not every user interface feature is merely a “user requirement”, it can be technical and inventive too. Catchword: The term “user requirement” is often used when assessing the technicality of features of user interfaces. The Board understands the term to refer to needs and
EPO – BoA – Combination of three documents of different complexity (T 0412/23)
#EPO – Can you combine three documents for inventive step? When the teachings of three documents are combined, this has to be done – in circumstances such as the present ones – step by step, i.e. in a first step, the teaching of another document is combined on the basis of the teaching or embodiment