Magic Leap Loses Patent on Biometric Information Sharing: A Lesson in Software Patents

The world of augmented reality (AR) took an interesting turn recently when Magic Leap, a leading player in AR technology, lost a European patent covering biometric information sharing on its AR headset. The European Patent Office (EPO) Board of Appeal revoked the patent entirely, ruling that the claimed invention was merely an administrative scheme rather than a technical solution.

In this article, I break down Magic Leap’s patent, the reasoning behind the decision, and the lessons we can learn to navigate software patents in Europe.

The Patent at the Center of the Case

Magic Leap’s European patent EP 3 433 707 B1 focused on a technique for sharing biometric data collected by an AR headset. Claim 1 was directed to a head mounted display system configured for users to manage how their biometric data is shared. The gist of the invention was to:

  • Present a user interface popup with consent categories.
  • Obtain user consent via interactive buttons.
  • Control data transmission based on the user consent.

On a side note, the patent only includes apparatus claims, meaning Magic Leap could have enforced it solely against other hardware manufacturers. The claims could have easily been crafted to also cover competitors who sell the software without the headset. If you want to learn how to draft better software patent claims, my Patenting AI Masterclass will help you.

Why Was the Patent Revoked?

The EPO Board of Appeal concluded in its decision T 0371/23 (Consent categories/MAGIC LEAP) that Magic Leap’s claimed invention did not provide a technical contribution beyond a standard administrative procedure. The Board’s key argument:

1.4 (…) the human-machine interaction in the case at hand does not control in any manner how the technical transmission of data actually takes place. The user’s consent does not change the way how information is technically transmitted. Instead, it merely gives the user’s approval to the categories of information which can be shared with third parties. However, it is not a “technical task” to give consent to sharing of information.

This reasoning reminds me of a related case, where the Board of Appeal drew teh line between data privacy (non-technical) and data security (technical). The related case is T 1248/12 (Privacy preserving data mining/CROSSIX), where the Board held:

It aims to protect data privacy, which is not a technical problem. The problem of data privacy is not synonymous with data security. Data privacy concerns what information to share and not to share (and making sure that only the information that is to be shared is shared), whereas data security is about how to prevent unauthorised access to information.

Check the Beyond Best Practice podcast for a more in-depth analysis of the EPO decision:

Key Takeaways for Patent Professionals

This case highlights several important lessons for patent professionals and technology companies looking to protect software innovations:

  1. Technical Character Is Crucial – In Europe, a patent must solve a technical problem in a way that is not purely administrative or abstract. Simply implementing an idea using software or algorithms is not enough; there must be a demonstrable technical improvement.
  2. Software Patents Require More Than Just a Novel Idea – Many businesses assume that if their invention is new and valuable, it will be patentable. However, as this case demonstrates, European patent law requires that a claimed invention go beyond an administrative or organizational method and contribute meaningfully to technological progress.
  3. The COMVIK Approach Is Still the Gold Standard – The EPO consistently applies the COMVIK approach, which states that only those features contributing to a technical solution are considered when assessing inventive step. Non-technical features, such as business methods or abstract ideas, are disregarded in this analysis.

What’s Next?

Do you want to master the art of patenting software and AI innovations? Join my brand-new Patenting AI Masterclass! This 3-hour online seminar is designed for patent professionals looking to strengthen their AI patent drafting skills while avoiding common pitfalls.

👉 Reserve your spot here: https://powerclaim.io/patenting-ai-masterclass/

All the best,
Bastian