FITUG e.V. Förderverein Informationstechnik und Gesellschaft

EPO Case Number: T 0931/95 - 3.5.1

[Mit dieser Entscheidung einer technischen Beschwerdekammer scheint das EPA den Spielraum fuer eine Gewaehrung von Patenten auf Geschaeftsmethoden spuerbar einzuengen. Man gewinnt den Eindruck, dass das EPA sich restriktiver entwickelt als der BGH. --AHH]

http://www.european-patent-office.org/dg3/pdf/t950931eu1.pdf

Case Number: T 0931/95 - 3.5.1

1. Having technical character is an implicit requirement of the EPC to be met by an invention in order to be an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1)EPC. (following decisions T 1173/97 and T 935/97)

2. Methods only involving economic concepts and practices of doing business are not inventions within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC. A feature of a method which concerns the use of technical means for a purely non-technical purpose and/or for processing purely non- technical information does not necessarily confer a technical character to such a method.

3. An apparatus constituting a physical entity or concrete product, suitable for performing or supporting an economic activity, is an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC.

4. There is no basis in the EPC for distinguishing between "new features" of an invention and features of that invention which are known from the prior art when examining whether the invention concerned may be considered to be an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC. Thus there is no basis in the EPC for applying this so-called contribution approach for this purpose. (following decisions T 1173/97 and T 935/97)

[...]

The Board, therefore, concludes that:

Methods only involving economic concepts and practices of doing business are not inventions within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC. A feature of a method which concerns the use of technical means for a purely non-technical purpose and/or for processing purely non- technical information does not necessarily confer a technical character to such a method.

[...]

Zurück