REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - BEYOND THE HYPE: AI IN PATENT PROSECUTION
​

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All in all, the appeal was dismissed and the patent was revoked.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

Invalidity of juicer patent upheld on appeal
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of Hurom’s juicer patent for lack of inventive step, while clarifying the admissibility requirements for patent amendments and the use of the unamended description when construing amended claims. It also confirmed the UPC’s jurisdiction over infringement in Poland despite Poland not being a UPCA Contracting Member State, but found that Hurom had failed to establish infringement under Polish law.
​
Evidence preservation doesn’t stretch to interrogation
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that evidence-preservation orders may be granted ex parte where there is a demonstrable risk that evidence could be destroyed or become unavailable, and that such orders may extend to relevant commercial and promotional documents. However, Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant’s personnel on substantive technical matters, which must instead be handled under the Court’s control.
​
UPC Court of Appeal clarifies claim construction, the role of party experts, and provisional measures in direct-competition cases
03 November 2026
The CoA’s decision of 30 April 2025 in Insulet v EOFlow provides important guidance on claim construction, the role of party-appointed experts and the requirements for provisional injunctions.
​