< Back to latest news & events

Articles

Spoiler: You can get patents for software!

March 2024

I’ve been a patent attorney working in what’s often called “computer-implemented inventions” for around 20 years. Throughout that time, I’ve had many people tell me that you couldn’t get patents for software. Well, I’m able to tell you otherwise – it is possible to get patent protection for software inventions. The situation is a bit more complicated than if you’re trying to get patent protection for something like a part for a car or a new medical device, but it’s definitely doable. Did you know that Meta (Facebook etc), eBay, and LinkedIn all have granted European patents? These companies are not mainly known for physical products you can pick up and wave around (although I’ll admit that Meta has been in the news a lot recently for its VR headset).

Across Europe, from Iceland to Turkey, the standard for having prospects of obtaining patent protection for a software invention is that the invention must provide a technical solution to a technical problem. Typically, if the invention is controlling something outside of a computer, for example, software control of a manufacturing process, then that would be considered sufficient. Another example is if the invention is improving the computer itself e.g., making it faster, more energy efficient, using less memory and so on.

In the US, it used to be much easier to obtain patent protection for software inventions, however that has changed in recent years.  More recently the tests for software patentability in the US and Europe often have similar results. In the US, the invention will be considered as to whether it relates to an abstract idea, and if it does, does it relate to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. From this, we can see that the examples mentioned previously – controlling something outside the computer, improving the computer – would likely be considered to amount to abstract ideas, but having the “significantly more” to get them over the line to be patent eligible. However, in our experience, we do see a little more variability in what the US Patent and Trade Mark Office allows.

On the other hand, there are some software areas where it will be more difficult, if not impossible, to get patent protection – these include games software, methods involving mathematics, presentations of information, and administration or business software. Consider an example of making computer version of a board game – this would basically be using the computer to do what computers are known to do (and not in a faster/better way). Doing something on a computer that could be done with pen and paper or in a user’s head is another warning sign that a getting a patent could be challenging. Business ideas can be another tricky area – consider a situation where someone has come up with a clever new business idea that they are going to provide via mobile and desktop apps. If the clever part is in the business idea itself, then getting a patent is likely to be challenging. However, if something clever was needed to actually implement the business idea in the app, then the chance of getting a patent might be more promising.

For inventions including an Artificial Intelligence (AI) element, these are in essence still a “computer implemented invention” and the guidance above still applies. If the invention solves a technical problem, then the invention has a good chance of being considered eligible for patent protection. But if the invention is using some straightforward AI to do what AI is expected to do, then the chances of patent protection are slimmer.

As you’ll appreciate, protecting software is a tricky area of patent law, but expert advice is available.  If you think you might like to protect a new computer-implemented product or system, there is hope! Contact a patent attorney, and they will be pleased to discuss how best to proceed.

Finally, a slight tangent, but always worth mentioning – for any type of invention that you might want to protect, be it software, a chemical or biological substance, or a physical machine, please remember to keep the invention confidential until a patent application has been filed (or you are certain that you do not want to file a patent application). Sharing details of the invention can prevent you from getting valid patent protection.

 


This article was prepared by Sarah McCrann for Business Leader. Read the original article here.

Latest updates

A New Era for AI Patents in the UK: Supreme Court Aligns with the EPO

The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in Emotional Perception AI Limited (EPAI) vs Comptroller General of Patents, a decision which serves to significantly change the way …

Read article
Event - 23rd - 25th March 2026

HGF are Gold Sponsors of IPBC Europe 2026

HGF are proud sponsors of IPBC Europe 2026, taking place from 23-25 March 2026 at the Pullman Paris Montparnasse. Bringing together patent pioneers, in-house leaders and private practice specialists, IPBC …

Event details
Event - 8th - 11th February 2026

AUTM Meeting 2026

We are attending the AUTM Annual Meeting from 8–11 February, a flagship event bringing together technology transfer professionals from across the globe. AUTM connects innovators, universities, and industry leaders to …

Event details

The Antibody Series #5 | Epitope-defined antibody claims: when “binds to this epitope” becomes a risk of insufficiency

The Boards of Appeal of the EPO (BoA) are the appeal body that reviews decisions made at the EPO; here, they reviewed an appeal in opposition proceedings after the revocation …

Read article

The Deity Shoes case: a question of design activity and the constraints on a designer’s freedom

The footwear brand Deity Shoes sought to enforce their Community Design rights, both registered and unregistered, against Mundorama Confort and Stay Design. However, Mundorama Confort and Stay Design found fault …

Read article

The Antibody Series #4 | pH points in antibody claims: when “same pH ” becomes an addition of matter

The Boards of Appeal of the EPO (BoA) are the appeal body that reviews EPO decisions; in this case, they reviewed a revocation in opposition of a patent relating to …

Read article

The Antibody Series #3 | Antibody code names in claims: why “ACZ885” is not sufficient to define the antibody

The Boards of Appeal of the EPO (BoA) are the appeal body that reviews EPO decisions. In this case, they examined a claim that identified an antibody by an internal …

Read article
Event - 3rd February 2026

HGF Brand & Design Conference 2026

Join us on 3rd February 2026 for HGF’s Brand & Design Conference, the must attend event for in-house legal teams, brand leaders, creatives, and innovators shaping the future of IP. …

Event details