{"id":893,"date":"2019-09-05T13:57:49","date_gmt":"2019-09-05T11:57:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bardehle.com\/europeansoftwarepatents\/?p=893"},"modified":"2021-09-29T19:44:57","modified_gmt":"2021-09-29T17:44:57","slug":"european-software-patents-august-2019-updates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bardehle.com\/europeansoftwarepatents\/european-software-patents-august-2019-updates\/","title":{"rendered":"EUROPEAN SOFTWARE PATENTS August 2019 updates"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

August came with four new decisions in the EUROPEAN SOFTWARE PATENTS<\/a> knowledge base relating to data retrieval, graphical user interfaces, and automation:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patentability of data retrieval concepts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In the area of data retrieval<\/a><\/strong>, one recent decision refused to grant a software patent on a method of conducting internet search from an instant messenging application<\/a>. The Board of Appeal decided that the desire to enable users to perform explicitly defined web search queries is not a technical aim but rather a non-technical requirement. Searching for documents using keywords has a non-technical character, and this is not changed by the mere use of a computer system. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Patenting graphical user interfaces<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Improvements in graphical user interfaces<\/strong><\/a> are sometimes difficult to protect with patents when they are closely related to the presentation of information (which is as such excluded from patentability).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In one case, the European Patent Office decided that a confirmation element which is provided independent of a concrete content of related information displayed to a user<\/a> is non-technical. The argument was that providing a confirmation element independent of a concrete content of related information displayed to a user and independent of the subsequent cognitive processes or decisions of the user does not solve a technical problem and thus cannot contribute to inventive step. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Automation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

By the way, if you are interested in a deeper look into how the European Patent Office examines software-related inventions, this 30-minute video gives a concise overview of the “two hurdle” approach with lots of examples<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the field of automation, the European Patent Office considered a self-controlling documentation for validated processes<\/a> non-technical. According to the Board of Appeal, the automation of a method known in the art cannot contribute to inventive step, wherein a method also has to be considered as automated when some steps still have to be carried out a human. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Likewise, another Board of Appeal decided that tracking SWAP derivatives transaction positions<\/a> is non-technical, and emphasized that the pure automation in the sense of making financial information available quickly is not considered technical by the EPO. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fear of missing out?<\/h2>\n\n\n \n \n
<\/div>\n \n\n