
Logic Patents > Reviews > Akte München 1973 > EPO 1978 Guidelines > EPO 1990 T 22/90 > IBM Print Color > Sohei
IBM Print Color	Bosch	Sohei	EPO

EPO decision T 769/92 (1995): Sohei file shuffling system

According to this landmark decision of the European Patent Office's Technical Board of Appeal of 1995, computer-implemented business methods are patentable. In the EPO's own words "An invention comprising functional features implemented by software is not excluded from patentability under Art 52(2"(c) if technical considerations lend a technical nature to the invention in that they imply a problem to be solved by implicit technical features. So an accounting system can be technical if it has technical features (in this case, shuffling of files).)

title:: EPO decision T 769/92 (1995): Sohei file shuffling system
source:: EPO EPO 1995.8/p:525

Annotated Links

A. Annotated Links

EPO T 0208/84 (1986): Vicom: A pathbreaking decision of the European Patent Office's Technical Board of Appeal, which states that an solution for faster processing of image data is patentable even when it resides solely in a computer program.
EPO T 1173/97 (1998): IBM Computer Program Product: According to this pathbreaking decision of the European Patent Office's Technical Board of Appeal, direct claims to computer programs are permissible under Art 52 of the European Patent Convention. In the words of the Board: "A computer program product is not excluded from patentability under Article 52(2" and (3) EPC if, when it is run on a computer, it produces a further technical effect which goes beyond the "normal" physical interactions between program (software) and computer (hardware).)
Art 52 EPC: Interpretation and Revision: The limits of what is patentable which were laid down in the European Patent Convention of 1973 have been eroded over the years. Influential patent courts have interpreted Art 52 in a way that renders it obscure and meaningless. Not all courts have followed this interpretation, and numerous law scholars have shown why it is not permissible. The EPO had accepted the inconsistencies in anticipation of an expected change of law. However this expectation was frustrated in 2000 by the governments and in 2003 by the European Parliament. The Parliament voted for a clarification which gives Art 52 back its meaning. Meanwhile, proponents from all sides have proposed to modify Art 52(3) EPC in one or the other way, of course while claiming that this merely serves to "clarify the status quo" or to implement a directive which serves this purpose, and, since the European Commission and the Council have not signalled support for the Parliament's approach, there is still no common understanding of which "status quo" we are talking about.
Jürgen Betten's lifetime fight for Software Patents: The patent attorney who litigated for this decision. As of 2005, Betten is telling audiences and MEPs that data processing and business methods are not patentable subject matter in the Council's text nor in the EPO practise.