The Patentability of Computer Programs in Europe: An Improved Interpretation of Articles 52(2) and (3) of the European Patent Convention

Abstract

After the introduction we discuss the European Patent Convention (EPC) provisions that are relevant to the exculsion from patentability of computer programs and the broader relevance of the fact that the European Patent Office's (EPO's) Enlarged Board of Appeal has recently been requested by the EPO President to interpret these provisions. Next, we comment on the relevance of the recent EPC revision, before addressing what a computer program must be taken to mean for the purposes of the exclusion from patentability. After drawing attention to the conflict in case law that has developed in relation to the patentability of the computer programs and briefly summarizing the different approaches the EPO has taken to Article 52 of the EPC, we explain the evolution of these approaches, with particular attention to the EPO's dominant “technical character” approach. Subsequently, we address the questions put to the Enlarged Board and how they might be answered. We set out our proposal for what we believe is the approach the Enlarged Board should adopt. Since this approach might have effects beyond the field of computer programs, we show that the EPO case law outside computer programs would not be altered by our approach. Two alternative approaches are then critically addressed before setting out our conclusion.

Applicability of the Term ‘As Such’ While Protecting the Computer Programs: An Outlook for European Law

“…83 The UK is pressured to liberalise the patents for computer programs from businesses. 84 The increasing number of patent claims for computer programs in the UK was found to be partly because businesses got similar patents in the US, and they need to get the rights everywhere before the competition does. 85 The worldwide number of AI patent applications was three times higher in 2016 than 2012.…”

“…84 The increasing number of patent claims for computer programs in the UK was found to be partly because businesses got similar patents in the US, and they need to get the rights everywhere before the competition does. 85 The worldwide number of AI patent applications was three times higher in 2016 than 2012. 86 Artificial Intelligence (AI) is growing three times faster now than 5 years ago and is learning faster each time it is 69 put to work.…”

Examination of applications for registration of the invention under EU regulations - Experience for Viet Nam

“…The EPO is responsible for the examination of patent applications, which is established by EPC g . The task of the Organization shall be to grant patents certificates called European Patent h issued under EPC and affects as registered in a single country 9 . As a result, patent applications to be protected in the designated countries will only have to go through a general examination process, examined for patentability according to a common standard.…”

Gestão de ativos de Propriedade Intelectual: um estudo sobre as práticas da Braskem S.A.

“…Considerando-se o período de 2007-2011, no corpo do texto, abstracts, títulos e key words, o número anterior caiu a 60 e a zero, respectivamente. A análise dos abstracts dos 60 artigos do journal antes referido indicou foco em: sistemas de propriedade intelectual de países ou regiões (Bernieri, 2006;Sterckx & Cockbain, 2010); em pirataria (e.g., El-Bialy & Gouda, 2011); em patentes (e.g., Sterckx & Cockbain, 2010); em denominações de origem (e.g., Yeung & Ker, 2011); em efeitos sobre investimento estrangeiro (e.g., Bernieri, 2006), desenvolvimento de países (e.g., Blakeney & Mengistie, 2011) e inovação (e.g., Gervais, 2009), dentre outros. Artigos com foco em sistemas empresariais de gestão da propriedade intelectual não foram localizados.…”