Managing content subscriptions: non-technical

This decision concerns a European patent relating to a media guidance application for managing accounts for subscription services. Granted in 2019, the patent subsequently faced opposition. The opposition proceedings concluded in 2021, with the patent being upheld in its granted form. However, the opponent filed an appeal and prevailed, resulting in the revocation of the patent. Here are some practical takeaways from the decision T 2202/21 of February 27, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.03.

Key takeaways

The invention

The invention relates to managing accounts for subscription services by a media guidance application. For example, by monitoring user activity and managing user accounts on behalf of a user, the media guidance application may recommend subscription services and/or terms of a subscription service tailored to the individual needs of the user.

Figure 2 of EP3369233

Here is how the invention was defined by claim 8 (the only independent method claim) of the patent in its originally granted form:

Is it patentable?

D2 (US 8 843 736 B2) was the most relevant prior art document in the opposition proceedings and the subsequent appeal proceedings. The Opposition Division (OD) found that claim 8 involves an inventive step over D2. However, the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.03 (TBA) had another opinion.

The OD and the TBA had the same assessment regarding which features are distinguishing features, but they had different opinions regarding the inventive step.

Distinguishing features

The following features were found as the distinguishing features:

• (a) A successful comparison of the first authentication key against a plurality of acceptable authentication keys precedes the storage of the “first user account” at the content provider server [features M8.3 and M8.4].
• (b) The content aggregator server – rather than the user equipment device (“CE device 12”) – issues the request for the service including the second authentication key [feature M8.6].

Technical effects and objective technical problem

The TBA disagreed with the OD regarding the formulation of the technical task:

1.1.7 The opposition division’s formulation of the objective technical problem (“management of credentials for a plurality of subscription services”, cf. Reasons 21 of the decision under appeal) was not based on any particular technical effects associated with the distinguishing features previously identified. This preliminary step is however necessary in the framework of the problem-solution approach to properly assess whether or not the skilled person would have considered the introduction of these features into the system of D2. Furthermore, although credentials may have a well-recognised technical purpose per se, the board is not convinced that the “management of credentials” should necessarily be considered as a technical task rather than an administrative one, analogous to, for instance, maintaining an inventory of automobile spare parts.

…

1.1.9 As to features M8.3 and M8.4, the board considers that they could provide a reliable verification of the first authentication key on which the generated first subscription is based. But only inasmuch as the “plurality of acceptable authentication keys” were securely obtained and handled by the content provider server – an aspect not required at all by claim 8. Feature M8.6, on the other hand, cannot be credibly associated with any technical aspect. In particular, the advantage derived from feature M8.6, i.e. having a (trusted) third party send the request for the service instead of the user device, is explicitly driven by administrative aspects rather than technical ones in the opposed patent (see e.g. paragraphs [0008], [0178] and [0241]). The underlying administrative (business-related) constraint could in fact be that a first subscription service enters into an agreement with a second subscription service to offer subscriptions on the first subscription service at a discounted price, thus necessitating a delegation of processing tasks from the user device to a (trusted) third party (such as a “content aggregator server”).

Hence, applying the well-established COMVIK approach (cf. T 641/00 as confirmed, for example, by G 1/19), the objective technical problem could be framed as “how to securely implement the above administrative concept in the system of D2, while maintaining control over the respective user accounts” (see also the opposed patent, e.g. column 53, lines 45-50 or column 68, lines 41-46).

Could-would approach

The TBA found that the distinguishing features do not involve an inventive step:

1.1.11 Nonetheless, the board considers that validating user accounts at a first subscription service (cf. e.g. D2, Fig. 1: “CONTENT SERVER 1”) based on credentials of new users obtained from a second subscription service (cf. D2, Fig. 1: “MANAGEMENT SERVER”) – as per feature M8.6 – rather than from a user device (cf. D2, Fig. 1: “CE device 12”) would have constituted a straightforward endeavour for the skilled person entrusted with the task of implementing the administrative concept of “subscription credential aggregation”. In this respect, the board stresses that – irrespective of its administrative convenience – the mere use of a (trusted) third party to manage the subscription credentials does not provide as such any additional security. Rather, such technical contribution should be derivable from the specific implementation of the communication between the concerned entities and the third party. Yet, this aspect is not present in claim 8, either.

1.1.12 As to features M8.3 and M8.4, in the system of D2, the authenticity of a credential is guaranteed, by way of example, with a keyed hash value (cf. D2, column 5, lines 58 and 59). Even accepting arguendo that the use of a pre-defined list of valid user credentials at the “content provider server” credibly contributed to the overall security (cf. point 1.1.9 above), the skilled person would have considered this possibility as a well-known alternative to the keyed hash.

Finally, the TBA concluded that claim 8 as granted lacks an inventive step.

The auxiliary requests were not admitted because the TBA considered that they were late filed (i.e., they should have been filed within the time limit of filing the grounds of appeal, as stipulated by Article 12(3) and 12(4), third sentence, RPBA: a complete case must be included in the statement of grounds of appeal).

In the end, the patent was revoked.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2202/21 of February 27, 2024, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.03.

Please share this article if you enjoyed it!