In this decision, the European Patent Office refused to grant a software patent on a digitalized approach for distributing product inserts. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 0223/18 (Product insert update/BIO-RAD) of 18.2.2020 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05:

Key takeaways

Digitalization of the existing workflow for distribution of product inserts: only straightforward implementation of an administrative method using notorious technical means

The invention

This European patent application concerns the digitalization of the existing workflow for distribution of product inserts. According to the application, conventional product inserts were printed and packaged with control products on the basis of information available at the date of manufacture. The invention provided an easy, cost-efficient and targeted way of distributing product insert information.

Fig. 1A of EP 2 567 353
Fig. 1A of EP 2 567 353

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1:

  • Claim 1 (main request)

Is it technical?

The first instance examining divison had refused the patent application based on the argument that the subject-matter of the claim is the straightforward implementation of an administrative method using notorious technical means such as servers and databases, and consequently does not involve an inventive step. On the appeal stage, the appellant argued that the invention indeed had some business aspects, but that it nevertheless provided an easy, cost-efficient and targeted way of distributing product insert information.

The board was not persuaded:

The board does not doubt that, but the subject-matter of claim 1 does not go beyond the straightforward digitalization of the existing workflow for distribution of product inserts. It uses databases instead of paper for the storage of test data and the parameters derived from them, and servers for their distribution. It is evident that digitized information can be distributed much more easily, frequently, without the costs associated with printing, and that database management systems reply to queries unlike paper which does not.

The appellant also argued that the technical effect was to prevent the distribution of data that might not be accurate. Only when an insert was approved would that insert be transmitted to the end user insert database.

But also this argument did not convince the board:

However, as paragraph [0028] of the application also points out, production of control product inserts is regulated by well-defined FDA-approved procedures that dictate inter alia how insert values are approved. There are equivalent legal or regulatory requirements in every jurisdiction. These requirements for accuracy of parameter values and their approval have to be met, as a matter of course, by conventional printed product inserts that the appellant describes as the prior art. Therefore, the subject-matter of claim 1 cannot have the alleged effect with respect to the prior art.

Lastly, the appellant argued that the method of claim 1 generates more accurate parameters by analyzing data to see if changes occur. However, the board noted that neither claim 1 not the description revealed any information regarding how the data is analyzed  and thus the alleged effect was found to be merely speculative.

As a result, the board confirmed the first-instance decision that claim 1 concerned merely the straightforward implementation of an administrative method using notorious technical means such as servers and databases. Consequently claim 1 was found not to involve an inventive step, and the appeal was dismissed.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 0223/18 (Product insert update/BIO-RAD) of 18.2.2020

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. We will send you a monthly digest of new knowledge base entries, as well as occasional interesting information about European software patents. Please see our Privacy Policy for details.
* = Required field

Please share this article if you enjoyed it!