Benutzer:Tino Cannst/G 1/19
| 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
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]In der Rechtssache, die durch die Entscheidung T 489/14 der Beschwerdekammer 3.5.07 vom 22. Februar 2019 ausgelöst wurde, geht es um eine europäische Patentanmeldung, die "ein computerimplementiertes Verfahren, ein Computerprogramm und eine Vorrichtung zur Simulation der Bewegung einer Fußgängermenge durch eine Umgebung.[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
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]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
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]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
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]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
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]- G 3/08, referral relating to the patentability of programs for computers (referral held to be inadmissible for lack of divergent case law)
- List of decisions and opinions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office
References
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]Further reading
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]- Rainer Moufang: Zur Patentierung von Entwurfs- und Simulationsverfahren in der EPA-Rechtsprechung. (deutsch: On the Patenting of Design and Simulation Procedures in EPO Jurisprudence). In: GRUR Int. Nr. 12, 2018, S. 1146–1151.
- Rudolf Teschemacher: EPO – Enlarged Board of Appeal asked to decide on the patentability of computer-implemented simulation programs. In: EPLAW Patent Blog. EPLAW - European Patent Lawyers Association, 6. März 2019, abgerufen am 25. März 2019.
External links
[Bearbeiten | Quelltext bearbeiten]- 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)
- ↑ Referrals pending before the Enlarged Board of Appeal. In: epo.org. European Patent Office, abgerufen am 30. März 2019.
- ↑ a b Amy Sandys: Enlarged Board of Appeal releases G 1/19 decision on patenting computer simulations. In: JUVE Patent. Juve Patent, 11. März 2021, abgerufen am 12. März 2021.
- ↑ Decision T 489/14 (Pedestrian simulation/CONNOR) of 22.2.2019, Reasons 2, first paragraph.
- ↑ a b c Scott King, Matthew Hoyles: Computer implemented simulations referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. In: Kluwer Patent Blog. Kluwer Law International, 28. Februar 2019, abgerufen am 25. März 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. In: epo.org. Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 1. Juli 2020, abgerufen am 4. Juli 2020.
- ↑ G1/19: amicus curiae briefs. In: epo.org. Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 15. Juli 2020, abgerufen am 16. Juli 2020.