REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - Beyond the ai hype: ai in patent prosecution
​

T 1741/22 - no credible technical effect produced by deriving additional data from medical measurements

No items found.
​
September 19, 2024
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
EPO
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

An interesting "B" decision from Board 3.5.05 was published yesterday relating to the generation of new data from medical measurements being relied on for a technical effect. The decision is summarised with the catchword: "The mere generation of further data from measurement data already collected from the human body is not a technical effect (T 2681/16 and the Guidelines for Examination not followed)".

The patent at issue in T 1741/22 related to a system for analysing glucose monitoring data indicative of a glucose level in a bodily fluid. Most of the inventive step discussion revolved around Auxiliary Request 10, wherein the Patentee stated that the distinguishing features over the prior art were the steps involving determining and displaying minimum / maximum glucose values. In essence, the Patentee was arguing that "new data" was being generated from glucose monitoring data, which provided for improved analysis for guidance of a patient or physician. They even had an analogous case (T 2681/16) and an example in the Guidelines (G-II, 3.3) on their side!

The Board was not convinced. In their view, the claims did not relate to a new "measurement" with technical character, which must involve the calculation of the physical state of an object, such as the human or animal body (G 1/19). Rather, the claims involved processing already measured data to then generate and display further data. The Board found that such subsequent processing of certain measurement data amounts to merely cognitive or mathematical exercise that is inherently non-technical (reasons 2.3).

In the decision, the Board fully sets out why they have deviated from T 2681/16 (reasons 2.3.6) and also discusses the "clearly erroneous" section of the Guidelines (reasons 2.3.7).

All in all, the appeal was dismissed and the patent was revoked. We can perhaps expect a brief update to the Guidelines next year…

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending risks liability for defendant’s costs
24 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that setting aside a first-instance decision granting relief subject to recurring penalties generally has retroactive effect. Any penalty fees already paid will be refunded by the Court. The value of proceedings is determined by the interest of the party that brought the action. This is not changed as a result of an appeal. A claimant bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending does so at its own risk and may be liable for the defendant’s costs related to the enforcement proceedings.‍
​
Replacement parts and the value of asserting a narrower claim combination
17 July 2026
The UPC's Düsseldorf Local Division found that Wessper's cartridges indirectly infringed Brita's patent, and that a narrower claim combination can turn a consumable into an essential element.
​
Preliminary objection on jurisdiction partially successful – UPC clarifies requirements of anchor-defendant jurisdiction for non-UPC territories
25 June 2026
The Hamburg Local Division let Nixu pursue US-based Infoblox in the UPC for Germany, France and Finland, but threw out the UK claim. To reach a non-UPC territory through an anchor defendant, a claimant must plead joint infringement there.
​