If you draft patents for AI innovations, you must pay close attention to this new decision by the European Patent Office.
The central question:
The case centered on a method for controlling continuous chromatography using a “trained and validated mathematical model”. The Board of Appeal revoked the patent, finding the claims unclear.
The main arguments:
- Simply stating the model was “trained and validated” didn’t adequately define its characteristics or how it differed from an untrained/unvalidated model.
- The Board highlighted that one can’t readily determine if a given model has been trained and validated without comparison to an untrained/unvalidated counterpart.
What I find important:
This decision seems at odds with the practice of some EPO examiners who require applicants to include “trained” as a qualifier for their ML model in the claims, arguing that an untrained model wouldn’t function as intended.
What to do now
- Reconsider including terms like “trained” and “validated” in your ML model claims. Focus on the technical features of the model and its role within the invention.
- Read the whole decision here (it’s in German).
- Join my Beyond Best Practice newsletter to receive more tips like these.
All the best,
Bastian