- Specifically ignoring efficiencies in AI—patenting core AI and other mathematical methods based on technical implementation
- The requirement for technical implementation
- Where does this restrictive interpretation of a specific technical implementation come from and is it justified by the case law of the EPO’s Board of Appeal?
- Is there anything else in this decision that would justify the more restrictive language in the guidelines?
- What does this mean for mathematical methods and in particular AI/ML?
TMT analysis: The current Guidelines for Examination at the European Patent Office (EPO) consider artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) to be pure mathematical methods, in contrast to other areas of computer technology such as database technology. While it has been argued previously that this differential treatment ignores the technological reality of our days, in this article Alexander Korenberg, partner at Kilburn & Strode, takes a closer look at an aspect of the provisions in the Guidelines (specifically G-II, 3.3) in relation to the patentability of mathematical methods.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial