Registration-based enablement: non-technical

The application underlying the discussed decision concerns an electrically heated smoking system equipped with an interface for connecting to an Internet-enabled host to upload and download data and to receive software updates. The decisive feature required that the system is only enabled after registration with an Internet application on the host via a communications link (feature 1.7). The Board of Appeal found that this registration-based enablement feature does not contribute to the technical character of the invention, as it reflects a non-technical business or administrative requirement.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 1745/23 (Electrically heated smoking system/PHILIP MORRIS) of 6 March 2026, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

The invention

The Board of Appeal summarized the invention as follows:

The invention concerns an electrically heated smoking system that holds an aerosol-forming substrate and heats it in order to produce an inhalable aerosol. The system includes a housing containing a power supply, such as a lithium-ion battery, electrical hardware in the form of a printed circuit board, and a heating element, such as a heating blade, in contact with a tobacco plug. An interface, for example a USB socket, allows the system to establish a communication link with an Internet-enabled host, such as a personal computer, for uploading and downloading data. This connection also enables software to be downloaded from the host to program the system’s electronic hardware, allowing extended capabilities without requiring complex onboard components. Furthermore, the system is configured to be enabled only after registration via an Internet application on the host. The patent describes this as a security feature, for example when the device is supplied by post. In addition, the patent refers to various business-related applications such as “pay-as-you-smoke” billing, personalized recommendations of smoking articles, and smoking behaviour management.

Is it patentable?

The Opposition Division’s position

This case arises from opposition proceedings, not examination. Two oppositions were filed against the patent by JT International S.A. and British-American Tobacco (Investments) Limited. In a first decision, the Opposition Division revoked the patent on the ground of added subject-matter. That decision was set aside by Board of Appeal 3.2.01 in decision T 2358/19, and the case was remitted for further prosecution. Upon resumption, the Opposition Division decided to maintain the patent in amended form based on auxiliary request 1, finding that claim 1 was novel over D6 (US 2007/0045288 A1) and involved an inventive step. In particular, the Opposition Division considered that feature 1.7 contributed to the technical character of the invention, relying on the reasoning from T 2358/19 that enabling the system only after registration constituted a “security feature” intended to prevent unauthorised use.

The Appellants’ arguments

Both opponents appealed and requested revocation of the patent. Their key arguments on inventive step were as follows:

1. Feature 1.7 (enabling the system only after registration) does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. Simply entering data, without any verification or evaluation, does not prevent unauthorised use. Under the broad wording of the claim, any user could enter some data and activate the system.
2. The concept of enabling the smoking system only after registration is not necessarily motivated by technical reasons but may equally be motivated by non-technical business or administrative considerations.
3. D6 already discloses that the volatilising device can be remotely controlled from the host via a communication link. It would therefore have been obvious for the skilled person to also control the device’s enablement via the same link, making the technical implementation trivial.
4. The fact that registration is with an “internet application” on an “internet-enabled” host concerns the functionality of the host, which lies outside the scope of the device claim and is irrelevant to the assessment of inventive step.

The Board’s analysis

Novelty

The Board confirmed that claim 1 is novel over D6 (Article 54(2) EPC). Although D6 discloses entering a username or password, it does not clearly and unambiguously disclose that the device as a whole can be used only after registration. At most, such an implicit “registration” might allow for user-specific settings, not full device enablement.

Inventive step: technical character of feature 1.7

The Board disagreed with the Opposition Division and found that feature 1.7 does not contribute to the technical character of the invention:

1. Feature 1.7 merely requires that the system is enabled after registration, i.e. after the entry of some user or device data. Without any claimed verification or evaluation step, any user, whether authorised or not, could enter data and activate the system. The alleged prevention of unauthorised use is therefore speculative and cannot confer technical character.
2. The idea of enabling the system only after registration may equally be motivated by non-technical business or administrative considerations. This interpretation is consistent with paragraph [0052] of the patent, which refers to business-related applications such as “pay-as-you-smoke” billing or personalised recommendations.
3. The Board acknowledged that claim 1, as a device claim, has technical character as a whole. However, this does not mean that every claimed feature contributes to technical character. Feature 1.7 contributes technically only insofar as it implies enablement occurs via the communication link. The concept of enabling the system only after registration itself reflects a non-technical requirement, and the fact that its implementation entails a change in operational state does not alter this assessment.

Inventive step: COMVIK approach and obviousness

Applying the approach from T 641/00 (COMVIK), the Board formulated the objective technical problem as how to adapt the device of D6 to meet the non-technical requirement that it is only enabled as a whole after registration:

1. D6 already discloses remote control of the device from the host via a communication link. It would have been obvious for the skilled person to also control the device’s enablement via the same link.
2. The claim does not specify how the enablement is technically realised, so conventional techniques within the skilled person’s common general knowledge must be assumed.
3. The aspects concerning the “internet application” and “internet-enabled” host relate to the host’s functionality, which falls outside the scope of the claimed smoking system and cannot limit the device claim.

Auxiliary requests

Auxiliary request 1 differed from the main request only in that independent method claim 13 was deleted. Claim 1 was identical and therefore lacked inventive step for the same reasons. Auxiliary request 2 added to feature 1.7 that enabling the system after registration is “a security feature.” The Board found that the notion of “security” in this context is not limited to technical security but equally encompasses non-technical administrative or regulatory-based measures. Labelling such non-technical features as “security” does not confer technical character upon them.

Conclusion

The Board concluded that claim 1 of all three requests lacked an inventive step under Article 56 EPC. The decision of the Opposition Division was set aside and the patent was revoked. This decision illustrates that a feature requiring a device to be enabled only after registration is treated as a non-technical business requirement under the COMVIK framework. Without a claimed technical mechanism for verification or authentication, the mere concept of conditioning device use on prior registration does not contribute to inventive step, even when the claim is directed to a physical device. The straightforward implementation of such a non-technical requirement using known communication means already disclosed in the prior art renders the solution obvious.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1745/23 (Electrically heated smoking system/PHILIP MORRIS) of 6 March 2026, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Please share this article if you enjoyed it!