EPO Enlarged Board: computer simulations can be patented

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

EPO Enlarged Board: computer simulations can be patented

epo-600-comp.jpg

Case G1/19, before the Enlarged Board of Appeal, attracted a flurry of interest from patent owners and industry associations

The EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal has handed down an eagerly awaited decision that the established case law on computer-implemented inventions also applies to simulations.

In a decision published today, March 10, the EBoA found that just like any other computer-implemented invention, numerical simulations may be patentable.

According to the EBoA, patentability requires an inventive step based on features contributing to the technical character of the claimed simulation method.

In advance of today’s decision, in-house counsel told Managing IP that a decision to make simulation non-patentable could have had broader repercussions on patenting computer-implemented inventions.

It would have also damaged European industries that either create simulations or increasingly rely on software to test physical processes and methods before they are implemented, counsel added.

The case concerns a patent application (03793825.5) by an individual called James Douglas Connor.

The invention concerns simulation of pedestrian movement that can then be used to help design or modify venues such as a railway station or a stadium. The patent claims to provide a realistic simulation, in real-world situations, which cannot be modelled by conventional simulators.

In February 2019, the EPO rejected the application. After the refusal, the applicant appealed to the EPO’s Technical Board of Appeal, which referred questions to the EBoA.

More than 20 amicus curiae were filed with the EBoA from companies including IBM, Siemens and Philips, as well as from industry associations including AIPPI, the IP Federation and the European Patent Institute.

Managing IP will provide a full analysis of the decision in due course.

 

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
News of a new addition to Via LA’s Qi wireless charging patent pool, and potential fee increases at the UKIPO were also among the top talking points
Gift this article