No Need for ‘Plausibility’ in German Patent Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Ackermann
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Inventive Step ◽  
German Patent

Abstract In the case law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), increasing importance is being attached to the concept of ‘plausibility’, which, however, has no literal basis in the EPC. Nevertheless, many decisions in which inventive step (Art. 56 EPC) is assessed address the question of whether the claimed solution was at least ‘plausible’ at the effective date. For medical use claims, a ‘plausibility test’ is even performed for assessing sufficiency of disclosure (Art. 83 EPC). Starting from this example, the following article shows why German patent law does not need ‘plausibility’.

Artificial Intelligence Designated as Inventor – An Analysis of the Recent EPO Case Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (9) ◽  
pp. 918-924
Author(s):  
Martin Stierle
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Current Approach ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Patent Applications ◽  
Artificial Intelligence Systems

Abstract This paper will focus on the issue of designating artificial intelligence systems as inventors in the current framework of European patent law. Most recently, the European Patent Office rejected two patent applications which indicated a machine called DABUS as the inventor of the claimed subject-matter. The paper will analyse the grounds of the decisions in detail, thereby reflecting on the current approach of the European Patent Office to such designations and on the concept of inventorship within the European patent system in general.

There is no hope in inventive step

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-3
Author(s):  
Gemma Wooden ◽  
Matthew Blaseby ◽  
Derk Visser
Keyword(s):  
Technical Problem ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Inventive Step ◽  
Prior Art ◽  
Skilled Person

Abstract Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office, November 2019 edition The European Patent Office’s Guidelines have been updated to clarify that the approach for assessing inventive step involves determining whether a skilled person would have modified the closest prior art in an expectation of some advantage or improvement. A hope of solving the objective technical problem is insufficient for a modification of the closest prior art to be considered obvious.

19. Inventive step

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Bently ◽  
B. Sherman ◽  
D. Gangjee ◽  
P. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
State Of The Art ◽  
The State ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Inventive Step ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Way

This chapter examines the requirement that an invention is patentable if it involves an ‘inventive step’ or ‘non-obviousness’, that is, the invention is not obvious to a person skilled in the art, and the difficulty of deciding whether an invention is obvious (non-inventive) or non-obvious (inventive). It first considers the approach used by the European Patent Office to deal with the obviousness of a patent and compares it with that in the UK. It then explains the concept of the state of the art in an obviousness examination before concluding with an assessment of the way in which the inventive step has been addressed in a number of different circumstances.

Patenting Software

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noam Shemtov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
European Patent Office ◽  
European Patent ◽  
Patent Office ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court

This chapter examines some key elements of patent protection for computer-implemented inventions, with particular emphasis on the patent eligibility of software-implemented inventions in the United States and European Patent Office. It begins with an overview of computer-implemented inventions in the United States, focusing on policy trends and judicial interpretation. It analyses the US Supreme Court ruling in Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l. and its effect on the landscape of software-related patents, before discussing computer-implemented inventions at the European Patent Office, highlighting trends and the development of case law. Finally, it considers the convergence of the current approaches in the United States and European Patent Office with respect to patenting of software.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document