#5 G1/19 first reactions w/ Rudolf Teschemacher and many more

Last week, the Enlarged Board of Appeal finally published its long-awaited decision G1/19 about the patentability of computer simulations. Does it revolutionize the patentability of computer simulations and patents for software in general, as some had hoped? Or is it rather a controlled evolution of the EPO's framework for computer-implemented inventions? To find out I talked to a number of great experts in the field.

#1 Patenting AI in the EPO guidelines

In this (first!) episode of The Best Practice podcast, I'll walk you through the section on AI and machine learning in the EPO’s patent examination guidelines. I'll make the point that they are too restrictive when it comes to patenting AI innovations. At the end of the episode, I'm also sharing some of my best tips for how to draft AI patent applications so that they fulfill what’s in the guidelines.

Patents for AI: much is at stake

I just noticed that my little video about AI patents and enablement is approaching 500 views since I uploaded it last Wednesday. That's exceeding my expectations by far, so: Thank you all so much for your likes, shares and comments on Youtube and LinkedIn!  Here's the video, in case you've missed it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjFmVlnENek That said, there's much … Continue reading Patents for AI: much is at stake

Patents for computer simulations?

In case you haven't seen it already on the BARDEHLE PAGENBERG newsfeeds, my colleague Patrick Heckeler and I had a short conversation about the pending referral G1/19 and the underlying question whether computer simulations should be patentable at the EPO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAkv4_H35iE I'm very much looking forward to the Enlarged Board's decision. In fact, this decision … Continue reading Patents for computer simulations?