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

​
George James
​
September 19, 2024
#
EPO
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All in all, the appeal was dismissed and the patent was revoked.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

Litigants in person and IP risk: Lessons from Banham v Rogers
26 March 2026
The High Court’s judgment in Banham v Rogers provides a stark warning for SMEs defending intellectual property claims without professional advice. Acting as a litigant in person, the defendant misunderstood key technical issues, failed to comply with procedural requirements, and mismanaged correspondence and evidence. These cumulative errors left the court with no realistic defence to consider, leading to summary judgment and public reputational damage. The case underlines the importance of obtaining specialist IP advice at an early stage to avoid avoidable and compounding litigation risks.
​
Clarification of international jurisdiction
26 March 2026
The UPC Court of Appeal has clarified that where jurisdiction is based on Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation (place of harm), it is limited to damage occurring within UPC territory. In Keeex v Adobe, the Court set aside the Paris Local Division’s decision to hear infringement claims relating to non‑UPCA states, confirming that broader territorial reach requires satisfaction of the strict conditions under Article 71b(3).
​
Language protections don’t bite if you have a website
25 March 2026
In KeyMed v PR Medical, the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection seeking to change the language of proceedings from English to Italian under Rule 14.2(b) RoP. Although the defendant was an Italian company and the action was brought before the Italian local division, the court held that the language protection did not apply because the alleged infringement was not confined to Italy.
​