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)
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
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?
In May 2021, I had the pleasure of being invited to St. Petersburg again (this time only virtually, though) to talk about the "Patentability of Artificial Intelligence Inventions in Europe". For me, one advantage of online conferences is that it’s very easy to make a video recording. On the other hand, I found out that … Continue reading Patenting artificial intelligence in Europe in 2021
I just noticed that my little video about AI patents and enablement is approaching 500 views since I uploaded it last Wednesday. That's exceeding my expectations by far, so: Thank you all so much for your likes, shares and comments on Youtube and LinkedIn! Here's the video, in case you've missed it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjFmVlnENek That said, there's much … Continue reading Patents for AI: much is at stake
One of my favorite questions, obviously. And it came up again in my lecture about patents for startups last Monday. Short answer: It depends on what the software does. If it solves a technical problem, then yes. For an initial "technicality" assessment, rely on your gut feeling, but ask a patent attorney who is specialized … Continue reading Can software be patented?
Do you remember the two patent applications filed in the context of the Artificial Inventor Project which named an AI system called DABUS as inventor and which were refused by the EPO? The EPO has just published the written reasons of the decisions. As a reminder, in the designation of the inventor filed in both … Continue reading Can an AI be an inventor? No, says the EPO
In case you haven't seen it already on the BARDEHLE PAGENBERG newsfeeds, my colleague Patrick Heckeler and I had a short conversation about the pending referral G1/19 and the underlying question whether computer simulations should be patentable at the EPO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAkv4_H35iE I'm very much looking forward to the Enlarged Board's decision. In fact, this decision … Continue reading Patents for computer simulations?
Yesterday was the first Tuesday in 2020 - time for a new entry in the European software patents knowledge base.This decision is about database technology. Lately, I had several applications get rejected in first instance based on the argument that the invention involves only logical query optimization (=non-technical), which is by design encapsulated from the … Continue reading Patents for database technology