REGISTER now: Sweden Event - A new era for innovation: AI, the UPC and global patent opportunities
​

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

​
George James
​
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All in all, the appeal was dismissed and the patent was revoked.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

Court of Appeal focuses on the technical effect to determine added matter
30 September 2026
The Court of Appeal provided guidance on their approach to assessing added subject matter, highlighting that the technical effect underlying the invention and how the claimed and unclaimed features contribute thereto is central to the analysis.
​
Court of Appeal affirms interpretation of product-by-process features in claims, and clarifies applicable law pre-June 2023
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that product-by-process features in a product claim limit the claim only where the specified process imparts characteristics that can be achieved solely by that process. It also clarified the law applicable to acts occurring before 1 June 2023, holding that UPC law may apply to ongoing infringement for injunctive relief, whereas damages for acts completed before that date are governed by national law, and that claims for provisional protection remain governed by national law.
​
Appeal reveals tricky deadlines for orders contained in decisions
29 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that where a “privileged order” under Rule 220(1)(c), such as an order relating to the production of evidence under Article 59 UPCA and Rule 190 RoP, is contained within a decision on the merits, a 15 day appeal deadline for that order applies, separate from the substantive appeal deadline. Appeals challenging such orders after that deadline are inadmissible, and parties cannot circumvent the appeal rules by re-filing substantially the same request in the appeal proceedings.
​