The European Patent Office (EPO) has a stable and structured approach to patenting computer-implemented inventions. But how do AI/ML inventions fit in? This is a recording of my talk at the National Association of Patent Practitioners (NAPP) Annual Conference 2021: https://youtu.be/k7hft01QyfM Many thanks to Alex Pokot for hosting the panel, to my co-panelists Kenny Ko … Continue reading AI/ML patents at the EPO 🔴 [RECORDING]
IP managers in in-house patent departments often ask me: "How do I get the inventors to write better invention disclosures for software-based inventions?" The answer is simple: In the end, it's all about convincing the patent examiner that you created a non-obvious solution to a technical problem. But the devil is in the details. The … Continue reading How to write the perfect software invention disclosure report
This is an examination appeal around EP 2 776 993 "METHOD FOR PROCESSING AN ELECTRONIC PAYMENT CERTIFICATE". The applicant is Otto Group Solution Provider GmbH, a German IT service provider for companies in omnichannel retail, logistics and e-commerce. The invention concerns the systematic storing and analyzing of electronic and printed payment certificates which document purchases … Continue reading T 0977/17—Patenting the prediction of future user purchases?
This is an examination appeal around EP 1 397 753 "COMPUTER SYSTEM WITH NATURAL LANGUAGE TO MACHINE LANGUAGE TRANSLATOR". The invention relates to translating natural (human) language into an abstract formal language. The formal language then serves as a universal template for further translations into various machine languages, e.g., SQL or SMTPL. Fig. 2 of … Continue reading T 2825/19—Which technical considerations are needed for software inventions?
I've already shared my slide deck, so today I want to share a recording from my in-house inventor training on "How to write the perfect invention disclosure for a software invention": https://youtu.be/t61Xr4Uvszc Is your patent department stuggling to get proper invention disclosures out of the developers? Then let’s talk about an inventor training. Reach out … Continue reading 🔴 Inventor training workshop recording
This is an examination appeal against the refusal of EP 2 976 719 "ESTIMATING VISIBILITY OF CONTENT ITEMS" by Google. I find this decision very interesting because it is one of the first to build upon G1/19. Specifically, it deals with the question which interactions are technical on the input side of a software invention. … Continue reading T 1422/19—Are indirect measurements technical? (one of the first applications of G1/19)
That's indeed one of the classic questions, which came up once more during an in-house inventor training I was giving the other day. In today's #askbastian video I make the case for software patents and explain why copyright does not protect software inventions at all: https://youtu.be/Fo-L7848KpI What's your burning question about patents for the digital … Continue reading Why do we need patents when software is automatically protected by copyright?
This is an examination appeal against the refusal of EP 1 774 463 "DYNAMIC BUSINESS METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DIRECT MARKETING". The decision is a nice reminder of how the COMVIK approach for mixed-type invention works at the EPO. It confirms that the implementation of a non-technical method with conventional technology can't rescue the case. … Continue reading T 1141/17—Automatic selection of a marketing script
In this video I explain that the prior art is no different for a software patent as compared to any other type of patent. But there is one important difference when it comes to the validity of a (European) software patent: The different legal frameworks at the EPO and in Germany. https://youtu.be/0EowZVf_Yf0 Thanks to Alex … Continue reading Is it easy to invalidate a software patent?
This is an opposition appeal around EP 1 889 513 "COMMUNICATION SYSTEM FOR WIRELESS AUDIO DEVICES". The patentee is US-based Starkey Laboratories, Inc., one of the largest hearing aid manufacturers in the world and a very active patent filer. The board of appeal's decision dealt with a situation that often occurs in patent prosecution. Once … Continue reading T 2764/19—Can an arbitrary difference be non-obvious?