UK: Patenting Artificial Intelligence At The European Patent Office

Last Updated: 30 April 2019
Article by Philip Cupitt

I. Introduction

Artificial intelligence (“AI”) is one of the most exciting technologies of our time.  Although AI has been a field of research for over sixty years, it is only in recent years that it has begun to realise its potential. 

One factor in AI’s coming of age has been the development of new machine learning algorithms, through which a computer can learn to perform a particular task without being explicitly programmed.  The growth of machine learning algorithms has been fuelled by the availability of vast quantities of data from which those algorithms can learn, and ever more powerful computer hardware with which to process that data.  (In this article, the term “artificial intelligence” is used to refer to a broad range of technologies that includes machine learning algorithms.)

The rise to prominence of AI has been accompanied by a significant increase in the number of patent applications for AI.  For example, the EPO has seen more than a fifty per cent increase in the number of European patent applications that broadly relate to AI over the period from 2010 to 2014 (the most recent year for which the EPO’s statistics are available), with around six thousand such applications in 20141.  Over the same period, the EPO has seen nearly a threefold increase in patent applications for so-called “core AI” technology.

This article explains the EPO’s practice for examining patent applications relating to AI, and discusses the challenges faced when trying to patent AI at the EPO.

II.        New Guidelines for Examination in the EPO

Although there has been a steady stream of European patent applications relating to AI for many years, the EPO had not published any guidance on its practice for examining such applications until last year.  The uncertainty faced by patent applicants in this area was compounded by the dearth of case law specifically relating to AI.

The November 2018 edition of the Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office (hereafter referred to as “the Guidelines”) set forth the EPO’s practice for examining AI-related inventions for the first time. 

In accordance with the new Guidelines, inventions relating to AI are examined in the same way as inventions involving mathematical methods2.  The EPO’s rationale for treating AI in this manner stems from an observation that many artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques are based on computational models and algorithms.  In the EPO’s view, such computational models and algorithms are inherently of an “abstract mathematical nature”, and so should be treated in the same way as other mathematical methods.

The EPO’s decision to treat AI as a particular species of mathematical method creates a presumption that claim features relating to AI, such as an artificial neural network or a support vector machine, are non-technical.  Hence, these features alone cannot result in a claim being seen to define an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC, although this hurdle can easily be overcome by including some other technical means in the claim (such as by reciting the processing hardware used to implement the AI technique, or by reciting a “computer-implemented method” in the preamble of the claim).  More importantly, features relating to AI cannot support the presence of an inventive step when the Comvik approach3 is applied. 

However, the presumption that claim features relating to AI are non-technical can be overcome if the claim falls into either of two “safe harbours” that are set out in the Guidelines4.  The first safe harbour applies when a claim is limited to a “technical application” of a mathematical method.  The second safe harbour applies when a claim is directed to a “technical implementation” of a mathematical method.  The two safe harbours are discussed in more detail below. 

If the claim falls within either of the safe harbours, then the claim features relating to AI are deemed to be technical.  Assuming that those AI-related features are novel, they can be relied upon to demonstrate the presence of an inventive step over the prior art. 

A.        Technical Application

A claim falls within the first safe harbour when it is functionally limited to a specific technical purpose.

The Guidelines give several examples of technical purposes that, if recited in the claim, would allow the claim to benefit from the first safe harbour.  The most relevant of these technical purposes to the field of AI are quoted verbatim below: 

  • controlling a specific technical system or process, e.g. an X-ray apparatus or a steel cooling process
  • digital audio, image or video enhancement or analysis, e.g. de-noising, detecting persons in a digital image, estimating the quality of a transmitted digital audio signal
  • separation of sources in speech signals; speech recognition, e.g. mapping a speech input to a text output
  • providing a medical diagnosis by an automated system processing physiological measurements

The Guidelines emphasise that the technical purpose must be specific.  Merely reciting a generic purpose, such as “controlling a technical system”, is not enough.

            B.        Technical Implementation

A claim falls within the second safe harbour when it is directed to a specific technical implementation of the mathematical method. 

The Guidelines explain that this safe harbour applies when the mathematical method is particularly adapted for that implementation, in the sense that the design of the mathematical method is motivated by technical considerations of the internal functioning of a computer.

The Guidelines do not give an example of the second safe harbour that specifically relates to AI.  However, an example of a claim that might fall within the second safe harbour is claim 1 of European Patent No. 1 569 128.  That claim related to a “computer-implemented method for processing a computer application”, but did not recite a specific technical purpose of the method.  The claim did, however, include a detailed recitation of how a central processing unit (“CPU”) interacts with a graphics processing unit (“GPU”) to perform a machine learning technique, and specified various types of data that are communicated between the CPU and GPU.  Although this patent was granted by the Examining Division in 2015, without being considered by the Boards of Appeal, it serves as an example of an AI-related mathematical method that the EPO found patentable.

The two safe harbours may be exclusive.  Thus, a claim that falls within the second safe harbour need not recite any technical purpose.  It is possible for a claim to recite an overtly non-technical purpose (such as a business-related purpose) and nevertheless benefit from the second safe harbour5.

III.       Patentability of Some Exemplary AI Technologies

There is very little case law that specifically relates to AI.  The following paragraphs review some of the small body of case law that exists, together with the new Guidelines, to give some examples of AI technologies that are, and are not, regarded as patentable by the EPO. 

  1. Core AI

“Core AI” is a term used by the EPO to refer to the fundamental building blocks of AI and machine learning, as opposed to the applications of AI.  For example, an artificial neural network6 would be regarded as a core AI technology.

The new Guidelines suggest that it will now be difficult to patent innovations in core AI.  A machine learning algorithm that is new and non obvious may nevertheless be deemed to lack an inventive step, as the algorithm could be regarded as a mathematical method that lacks the technical features needed to support an inventive step.  Although an inventive step objection could be overcome by amending the claims to take advantage of either of the safe harbours discussed above, this would of course have the undesirable effect of sacrificing some scope of protection.  Furthermore, such amendments will not be possible when the application does not disclose either a technical purpose to which the algorithm can be applied or a specific technical implementation of the algorithm.

The Guidelines’ treatment of artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques as mathematical methods has some basis in case law.  In T 22/12, the Board found that a support vector machine7 was a mere mathematical method that did not provide a technical effect.

Nevertheless, the EPO has a long history of granting patents for core AI.  As just one example, European Patent No. 0 554 083 B1, which was granted in 1999, claims a “neural network learning system” that learns a probability density for relating input data to output data.  The claims do not recite a specific technical application of the neural network learning system, nor do they recite any details of how the neural network learning system is implemented in hardware.  If these claims were to be examined in accordance with the new Guidelines, they could well be said to be directed to a pure mathematical method that is devoid of an inventive step.  

  1. Natural Language Processing

Natural language processing (“NLP”) refers to techniques that allow a computer to interpret inputs, and to generate outputs, in human languages such as English, Spanish or Chinese. 

A well-known application of NLP is in virtual assistants, such as Amazon’s Alexa and Apple’s Siri.  Virtual assistants use a range of NLP techniques, such as: speech recognition, to transcribe a user’s speech into text; natural language understanding, to interpret the meaning of the text; and natural language generation, to produce a response in the language of the user.

The EPO considers some NLP techniques to be more patentable than others.  At one end of the spectrum lies speech recognition, which the Guidelines expressly recognise as a “technical purpose”, and which is readily patentable.  At the other end of the spectrum lies natural language understanding, which is considerably more difficult to patent.

The difficulties in patenting NLP, and other technologies involving linguistics, are longstanding.  In T 52/85, the Board considered a system for automatically generating a list of expressions whose meaning was related to an input linguistic expression.  The Board held that the relationship between the input and output expressions was not of a technical nature, but was instead a matter of their “abstract linguistic information content”.  The Board consequently found that the claimed subject-matter was unpatentable.

In another relatively old decision, T 1177/97, the technology at issue related to machine translation.  The Board again found the claimed subject-matter to be unpatentable, stating “Features or aspects of the method which reflect only peculiarities of the field of linguistics, however, must be ignored in assessing inventive step.”  This statement is often quoted by examiners when applying the Comvik approach to inventions in the field of natural language processing.  Although the Board in T 1177/97 also held that “information and methods related to linguistics may in principle assume technical character if they are used in a computer system and form part of a technical problem solution”, it is hard in practice to convince the EPO that a technical problem is solved by the linguistic aspects of an invention. 

  1. Classification Algorithms

Classification algorithms are able to categorise input data into one of a number of distinct classes.  For example, classification algorithms are commonly used to analyse medical images, and categorise the images according to whether they do, or do not, indicate the presence of a disease. 

The answer to the question of whether classification algorithms are patentable hinges upon the type of data that is being classified.

According to the Guidelines, classifying text documents solely in respect of their textual content is not a technical purpose and, therefore, is unlikely to be patentable8.  The Guidelines refer to T 1358/09, which related to classifying a document based on the frequency of occurrence of a particular term.  The Board in T 1358/09 held that this technique was not technical, and thus lacked an inventive step, stating:

Classification of text documents is certainly useful, as it may help to locate text documents with a relevant cognitive content, but in the Board's view it does not qualify as a technical purpose. Whether two text documents in respect of their textual content belong to the same "class" of documents is not a technical issue.”

There are a few other decisions in which the Boards of Appeal have found algorithms for classifying text documents to be unpatentable.  For example, in T 22/12, the Board found that a method of classifying electronic messages to detect “junk” messages lacked an inventive step.  Although the Board acknowledged that an email has technical properties, this was not enough to save the application from refusal because only the textual content of the email was classified.  It is interesting to note that another Board reached a different conclusion in T 1028/14, which also related to detecting undesired messages.  In T 1028/14, however, a message was classified based upon factors such as the IP address from which it originated, rather than based upon the textual content of the message.  Thus, the data that was used to classify a message in T 1028/14 could be said to have a more “technical” nature than that in T 22/12.

Whereas text classification is usually regarded as non-technical, the EPO takes a more favourable view when other types of data are classified.  In particular, the Guidelines acknowledge that the classification of digital images, videos, audio and speech signals is a technical purpose.

T 1286/09 lends some support to the Guidelines’ position that image classification is technical.  The technology at issue involved manipulating various properties of an exemplar image, and then using the resulting image to train a classifier.  The Board reversed the first instance decision that this subject-matter lacked an inventive step over the prior art.  However, the technical character of the subject-matter was never in question and, therefore, the Board did not explicitly confirm that image classification should be regarded as a technical purpose.

The EPO’s strict approach towards text classification is hard to reconcile with its more lenient approach towards classification of other types of data.  One possible explanation might be that in one of the earliest decisions on the patentability of computer programs and mathematical methods, T 208/84 (Vicom), a method of digitally filtering an image was found to be technical because the image was considered to be a physical entity.  Thus, the early case law may have created a view that images are technical, physical entities, whereas text documents are nothing more than their linguistic content. 

  1. Recommendation Systems

Recommendation systems provide suggestions for content that is likely to be of interest to a particular user.  For example, video streaming services may use recommendation systems to suggest movies that a user might enjoy.  As another example, merchants may use recommendation systems to suggest products that the user might wish to purchase.  Recommendation systems learn from the user’s previous behaviour to predict what content is likely to interest the user in the future.

In T 306/10, the Board held that a recommendation system lacked an inventive step and stated:

In the Board’s view, the selection of an item, for example a song, for recommendation to a user does not qualify as a technical purpose.  From a technical point of view it is irrelevant what songs are recommended to a user”.

Although recommendation systems are of great commercial importance to many online businesses, they are extremely difficult to patent.

V.        Claiming AI-Related Inventions

AI-related inventions may have three distinct, and potentially patentable, aspects:

  1. Generating training data for use in training a model, such as an artificial neural network;
  2. Training the model using the training data; and
  3. Using the trained model to analyse data.

Each of these aspects may be performed by a different party, and those parties may be located in different jurisdictions.  Thought should be given to drafting separate independent claims for each of the three aspects, where appropriate. 

In addition to claiming each of the three aspects listed above, one should also consider claiming the trained model itself.  Such a claim may have commercial value if, for example, the trained model can be deployed separately from the software or device that uses the model to analyse data. 

Claiming the trained model is difficult in practice.  The trained model may be no more than a set of numbers representing, for example, the weights of an artificial neural network.  The trained model may thus be difficult, or even impossible, to define in concrete technical terms.  A possible way to overcome this difficulty might be to draft a product-by-process claim.  For example, if the patent application claims a method for training a model, then it is simple to draft a claim directed to a model trained in accordance with that method.  However, given that a trained model may just be a set of numbers, it might be difficult to demonstrate that the model is new and inventive.

Even if a product-by-process claim is not allowable, a well-drafted claim to a method of training a model will confer protection on the model itself under Article 64(2) EPC.  This emphasises the importance of having an independent claim directed to the training method.

VI.       Conclusion

As the number of patent applications relating to AI increases, the new Guidelines represent the EPO’s attempt to draw a line between those AI technologies that are patentable and those that are not.  In some cases, the Guidelines will assist applicants by providing new lines of argument that can be raised during examination.  In the case of core AI, however, they may make it difficult to patent the type of technology that has been patentable for many years. 


1 The EPO’s statistics were presented by Yann Ménière, Chief Economist at the EPO, during his keynote speech at the EPO’s “Patenting Artificial Intelligence” conference on 30 May 2018.

2 Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, Chapter G-II, 3.3.1

3 T 641/00 and Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, Chapter G-VII, 5.4

4 Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, Chapter G-II, 3.3

5 See T 2330/13, for example.

6 An artificial neural network is a machine learning technique that maps input data to output data using layers of interconnected nodes, similar to the connections between neurons in the nervous systems of living beings.

7 A support vector machine is a machine learning algorithm that classifies input data, such that the data is assigned to one of two distinct classes.

8 Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, Chapter G-II, 3.3.1

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions