Home ›

About

Patentability Pending discusses the patentability of computer-implemented inventions under the European Patent Convention.

What the EPC considers inventions is defined in article 52 of the EPC. Article 52 (2) and (3) EPC read:

  1. The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:
    1. discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
    2. aesthetic creations;
    3. schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;
    4. presentations of information.
  2. The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.

So art. 52(2) EPC excludes programs for computers from patentability. However, art. 52(3) EPC limits this exclusion to programs for computers as such. Currently, it is still unclear how “as such” is to be interpreted, and there is a lot of debate going on among intellectual property experts about what is supposed to be the correct interpretation.

Related to the patentability of computer-implemented inventions is to some extend also the patentability of business methods (that are also excluded from patentability (art. 52(2)© EPC)). A lot of patent applications for business methods seek to protect an automated implementation of such a business method.

Patentability Pending discusses the patentability of computer-implemented inventions (and to some extend business methods) under the EPC. It facilitates discussions on the interpretation of article 52 (2) and (3) EPC.

Advocacy

Patentability Pending does not seek to advocate the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, software or business methods. Its primary goals is to provide information on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions under the EPC and insight into what is patentable and what is not. There are (very good) reasons why this subject matter should not be patentable as there are (very good) reasons as why it should. Patentability Pending merely serves as a discussion platform to present arguments for both sides and as a source of information to understand the difficulties in this discussion and to back-up the arguments in these discussions.

Affiliation

Patentability Pending is not affiliated in any way with the European Patent Office, nor any other patent issuing authority. The editor of Patentability Pending is working in a private practice patent law firm. Opinions expressed on Patentability Pending are the opinions of the author only.