Appeals body ducks question of software patentability

The highest appeals body of the European Patent Office ruled as inadmissible four questions on software patents

No change: That's the result of an 18-monthlong appeals process that the president of the European Patent Office hoped would clarify the rules on whether software may be patented.

In October 2008, EPO President Alison Brimelow referred four questions on the patentability of software to the EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal, its highest appeals court, on the grounds that a number of patent cases had reached "different decisions." With the referral, she hoped to remove uncertainty regarding the patentability of programs for computers under the European Patent Convention (EPC), which governs the EPO's activities, and open the way for the EPO to issue patents on computer programs.

EPO rules today only allow the patenting of computer-implemented inventions if they involve "technical considerations" - often taken to mean that the patent also covers a physical element controlled by the computer program.

Now, the board has come back with its verdict: The referral of the decisions is "inadmissible." Brimelow's questions remain unresolved.

In its verdict, the board takes a long route to its short answer, noting that it even had to study what "different" meant in the context of the patent convention before making its ruling. (After referring to other treaties, it decided that different meant "conflicting" so two decisions are only "different" if they are in conflict.)

In its 55-page ruling (PDF), the board wrote that, "Defining a computer algorithm can be seen [... ] as a pure mathematical-logical exercise [or] as defining a procedure to make a machine carry out a certain task."

Depending on which of these views is favored, the board wrote, "the question whether computer programming always involves 'technical considerations' may be answered negatively or positively."

Either view is valid, but it was apparently the intention of the writers of the EPC to take the negative view, the board concluded: that the abstract formulation of algorithms does not belong to a technical field -- and is therefore not patentable.

However, past patent rulings have shown varying views of the technical considerations inherent in computer programming, prompting Brimelow to seek clarification from the board.

On the main question referred to it, the board found that while there was a divergence between two decisions of lower appeal bodies within the EPO, the years that passed between those decisions meant that they represented a legitimate development of patent case law, rather than a conflict. With no conflict, the appeal was therefore inadmissible -- and Brimelow's questions left, for the time being, unanswered.

The European Patent Office issues patents in countries signatory to the EPC, including the member states of the European Union and neighbors including Norway, Switzerland and Turkey.

Join the Good Gear Guide newsletter!

Error: Please check your email address.

Tags patentseuropelegal

Our Back to Business guide highlights the best products for you to boost your productivity at home, on the road, at the office, or in the classroom.

Keep up with the latest tech news, reviews and previews by subscribing to the Good Gear Guide newsletter.

Peter Sayer

IDG News Service
Show Comments

Cool Tech

D-Link TAIPAN AC3200 Ultra Wi-Fi Modem Router (DSL-4320L)

Learn more >

D-Link PowerLine AV2 2000 Gigabit Network Kit

Learn more >

Crucial® BX200 SATA 2.5” 7mm (with 9.5mm adapter) Internal Solid State Drive

Learn more >

Lexar® Professional 1000x microSDHC™/microSDXC™ UHS-II cards

Learn more >

ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q – Reign beyond virtual world

Learn more >

Gadgets & Things


Learn more >

Lexar® Professional 1000x microSDHC™/microSDXC™ UHS-II cards

Learn more >

Lexar Professional 2000x SDHC™/SDXC™ UHS-II cards

Learn more >

Family Friendly

ASUS VivoPC VM62 - Incredibly Powerful, Unbelievably Small

Learn more >

Lexar® Professional 1000x microSDHC™/microSDXC™ UHS-II cards

Learn more >

Lexar Professional 2000x SDHC™/SDXC™ UHS-II cards

Learn more >

Stocking Stuffer

Lexar® Professional 1000x microSDHC™/microSDXC™ UHS-II cards

Learn more >

Lexar Professional 2000x SDHC™/SDXC™ UHS-II cards

Learn more >

Christmas Gift Guide

Click for more ›

Most Popular Reviews

Best Deals on Good Gear Guide

Latest News Articles


GGG Evaluation Team

Kathy Cassidy


First impression on unpacking the Q702 test unit was the solid feel and clean, minimalist styling.

Anthony Grifoni


For work use, Microsoft Word and Excel programs pre-installed on the device are adequate for preparing short documents.

Steph Mundell


The Fujitsu LifeBook UH574 allowed for great mobility without being obnoxiously heavy or clunky. Its twelve hours of battery life did not disappoint.

Andrew Mitsi


The screen was particularly good. It is bright and visible from most angles, however heat is an issue, particularly around the Windows button on the front, and on the back where the battery housing is located.

Simon Harriott


My first impression after unboxing the Q702 is that it is a nice looking unit. Styling is somewhat minimalist but very effective. The tablet part, once detached, has a nice weight, and no buttons or switches are located in awkward or intrusive positions.


Latest Jobs

Don’t have an account? Sign up here

Don't have an account? Sign up now

Forgot password?