The EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) has today (10 March 2021) issued their decision on case G1/19 (simulations), regarding the patentability of computer simulations. Their decision does not rule out patenting computer simulations in Europe. As we have discussed previously, the referral to the EBA arose from an appeal considering the patentability of an […]
We have just finished watching the oral proceedings before the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) on case G1/19 concerning the patentability of computer simulations. We were not alone – some 1,600 people signed up to watch today’s oral proceedings by live stream. Unfortunately (but not unexpectedly) no decision was announced during the proceedings. However, we did get to hear some of the EBA’s thoughts on the issues.
In modern manufacturing and design processes, computer models and simulations play a key and ever expanding role. Whereas previously many different prototypes may have had to be individually machined and then tested, now each design can be tested virtually. This allows optimal designs to be found without incurring any of the expense, or expending any of the time, associated with manufacturing multiple custom prototype components and designs- here we focus on the automotive sector.
The referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal relating to plants obtained by means of an essentially biological process.
An EPO Board of Appeal has referred the question of double-patenting to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA).
We take a closer look at the pending referral by the EPO President to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) on the question of “inadmissible” or “late filed” appeals. This case involves an interesting and complex interplay of linguistic analysis, legislative intention and, dare we say it, EPO politics.