In Abbott v Sinocare, UPC_CoA_901/2025, 17 April 2026, the UPC Court of Appeal endorsed the EPO approach to assessing inventive step for computer-implemented inventions.
The EPO approach was established in COMVIK (T 641/00) and confirmed by the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal in G 1/19. Under the COMVIK approach, it is legitimate to have a mix of technical and non-technical features in a claim, as is often the case with computer-implemented inventions. However, in the light of Art. 52(1), (2) and (3) EPC, a non-obvious technical solution to a technical problem is required for there to be an inventive step.
More specifically, when assessing the inventive step of such a mixed-type invention, all features which contribute to the invention’s technical character are taken into account. That includes features which are non-technical when taken in isolation but which, in the context of the invention, do contribute to producing a technical effect serving a technical purpose and so contribute to the invention’s technical character. However, features which do not contribute to the invention’s technical character cannot support an inventive step. An example of such a feature is one that contributes only to solving a non-technical problem, e.g. a problem in a field excluded from patentability (discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods; aesthetic creations; schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers; and presentations of information).
In Abbott v Sinocare, the UPC Court of Appeal agreed with the COMVIK approach, providing a summary of it as Headnote 1:
A claim feature should not be excluded from the assessment of inventive step merely because it is a non-technical feature, i.e. a feature which, on its own, would be considered a “non-invention” under Art. 52(2) EPC. A feature that is non-technical as such may still contribute to the technical character of the claimed invention as a whole by its interaction with the other claim features. Therefore, the interrelationship and functioning of the claim features must be assessed together.
In the case at issue, the claims related to a glucose monitoring system configured to process data and display glucose levels. The disputed features related to a timeline graph screen to be rendered in response to a user actuating an input button. The UPC Court of Appeal held that the features of the timeline graph screen were “all technical measures resulting in the technical effect of improved assistance to the user’s diabetes control by providing means to identify the effect of certain events on the monitored glucose levels”. The Court of Appeal also noted that “[t]he fact that the user ultimately decides which action to take based on the information provided by the system, does not make the features non-technical. The features generate the relevant displays through user interaction and technical means resulting in the technical effect of improved diabetes control.”
The Local Division had not addressed inventive step at first instance, having found it more likely than not that the patent was not infringed. The Court of Appeal therefore considered the issue for the first time on appeal.
The decision will be of interest to anyone with patent portfolios directed to computer-implemented inventions in Europe. The UPC’s adoption of the EPO’s approach to this subject-matter opens the door to referencing the extensive body of case law that has been developed by the EPO Boards of Appeal in the twenty years since COMVIK (T 641/00). This places practitioners with substantial EPO experience in a strong position when advising on cases related to computer-implemented inventions at the UPC.
J A Kemp LLP acts for clients in the USA, Europe and globally, advising on UK and European patent practice and representing them before the European Patent Office, UKIPO and Unified Patent Court. We have in-depth expertise in a wide range of technologies, including Biotech and Life Sciences, Pharmaceuticals, Software and IT, Chemistry, Electronics and Engineering and many others. See our website to find out more.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]