Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 22 FEBRUARY 2021

Patenting Database Technology: EPO Guidelines Update (Video)

Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Contributor
Bardehle Pagenberg

Bardehle Pagenberg

IP practitioners with technical expertise As one of Europe’s leading IP law firms, BARDEHLE...

View firm profile
Explore more from Bardehle Pagenberg

What types of inventions in database technology are patentable in Europe? The Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office will be updated on 1 March 2021 with a new section...

European UnionIntellectual Property
Bastian Best
Bastian Best
Author LinkedIn connections

What types of inventions in database technology are patentable in Europe? The Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office will be updated on 1 March 2021 with a new section specifically on database management systems and information retrieval.

In this episode, Bastian will walk you through the final draft of the new section to see how clear the guidance is.

self

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.

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.

View source

Related Articles

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

German Federal Court Of Justice Applies CJEU’s ‘Pastiche’ Doctrine And Confirms Lawful Music Sampling

The German Federal Court of Justice has delivered a landmark ruling in the decades-long "Metall auf Metall" litigation, applying the EU Court of Justice's framework to determine whether unauthorized music sampling can qualify as lawful "pastiche" under German copyright law. This decision provides crucial guidance on the boundaries between copyright protection and creative reuse in the music industry, while confirming that pastiche remains a narrowly structured exception rather than a general license to samp
GermanyIntellectual Property
Greenberg Traurig
Greenberg Traurig
Article

Der Bundesgerichtshof wendet die „Pastiche“-Doktrin des EuGH an und bestätigt die Rechtmäßigkeit von Musik-Sampling

The German Federal Court of Justice has delivered a landmark ruling in the decades-long "Metall auf Metall" litigation, applying the EU Court of Justice's framework to determine whether unauthorized music sampling can qualify as lawful "pastiche" under copyright law. The decision examines whether a two-second rhythm sequence from Kraftwerk's 1977 recording, used repeatedly in a 1997 song, constitutes permissible artistic dialogue or copyright infringement.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Greenberg Traurig
Greenberg Traurig
Article

Blow Molder With Optimised Operation Using Incremental Costs To Change Operating Parameters: Technical

A European Patent Office Technical Board of Appeal decision examines whether incorporating energy costs into blow molder input parameters constitutes an inventive step over prior art that considered energy efficiency. The central dispute revolves around whether "energy costs" encompasses energy consumption or is limited to monetary costs, and whether a claim broad enough to produce results indistinguishable from prior art can satisfy inventive step requirements.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

Local Division Düsseldorf, September 1, 2026, Decision On Infringement Action, UPC_CFI_307/2025

This case examines the liability of an EU Authorized Representative under the Medical Device Regulation as an intermediary in patent infringement proceedings, even when they are not direct infringers. The court addresses critical procedural questions including deemed acceptance of jurisdiction, the consequences of non-attendance at oral hearings, and the discretion to refuse stays despite pending CJEU referrals.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

CD Munich, UPC 523/2025, Revocation Action, Issued On September 2, 2026

The Munich Central Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed critical procedural and substantive questions in a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 4 226 039. The court examined the burden of proof required to establish lack of entitlement under Art. 138(1)(e) EPC, the court's discretion to assess dependent claims in stand-alone revocation proceedings, and the evidentiary value of Wayback Machine screenshots for proving public availability of online prior art.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

LD Düsseldorf, August 25, 2026, Decision On Infringement Action, UPC_CFI_56/2025, UPC_CFI_864/2025

The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court addresses parallel infringement and revocation proceedings involving dental implant technology patent EP 3 402 420 B1. The case involves Versah LLC asserting patent rights against multiple defendants across nine European jurisdictions, with one defendant withdrawing following settlement while others continue to contest both infringement claims and patent validity.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

Court Of Appeal, August 21, 2026, Order On Application For Suspensive Effect, UPC_CoA_135/2026

Violation of principle of party disposition constitutes “manifest error” The Court of First Instance is strictly bound by the relief requested according to Art. 76(1) UPCA and cannot award more than is requested. In case a court awards more than is requested (e.g. change of “and”-warning into “or”-disclaimer) this constitutes a manifest error under Art. 76(1) UPCA (cf. Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_388/2024, Sibio v. Abbott).
European UnionIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

LD Hamburg, August 25, 2025, Order On Application For Provisional Measures, UPC_CFI_1535/2026

The Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addresses whether patent holders must assert all potentially infringed patents in a single preliminary measures application, or if they may pursue separate proceedings. The decision clarifies the scope of due diligence obligations when patent holders become aware of potential infringements and the strategic implications for enforcement actions.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

Blow Molder With Optimised Operation Using Incremental Costs To Change Operating Parameters: Technical

A European Patent Office Technical Board of Appeal decision examines whether incorporating energy costs into blow molder input parameters constitutes an inventive step over prior art that considered energy efficiency. The central dispute revolves around whether "energy costs" encompasses energy consumption or is limited to monetary costs, and whether a claim broad enough to produce results indistinguishable from prior art can satisfy inventive step requirements.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

Court Of Appeal, August 28, 2026, Decision UPC_CoA_678/2025

The UPC Court of Appeal Luxembourg addresses critical questions about patent amendment admissibility, claim construction methodology, and jurisdictional boundaries in cross-border infringement cases. This decision clarifies the standard of review for patent amendments under Rule 30.1 RoP and establishes important precedent on burden of proof requirements when alleging infringement in non-UPCA member states like Poland.
LuxembourgIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

Local Division Düsseldorf, September 1, 2026, Decision On Infringement Action, UPC_CFI_307/2025

This case examines the liability of an EU Authorized Representative under the Medical Device Regulation as an intermediary in patent infringement proceedings, even when they are not direct infringers. The court addresses critical procedural questions including deemed acceptance of jurisdiction, the consequences of non-attendance at oral hearings, and the discretion to refuse stays despite pending CJEU referrals.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

Court Of Appeal, August 31, 2026, Order, UPC_CoA_312/2025

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses the procedural requirements for obtaining suspensive effect when filing an application for rehearing under Article 81(2) UPCA. The decision clarifies that suspensive effect is not automatic and requires independent substantiation beyond the grounds for rehearing itself, with applicants needing to demonstrate concrete, irreparable prejudice to justify departure from the default rule of continued enforceability.
LuxembourgIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

CD Munich, UPC 523/2025, Revocation Action, Issued On September 2, 2026

The Munich Central Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed critical procedural and substantive questions in a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 4 226 039. The court examined the burden of proof required to establish lack of entitlement under Art. 138(1)(e) EPC, the court's discretion to assess dependent claims in stand-alone revocation proceedings, and the evidentiary value of Wayback Machine screenshots for proving public availability of online prior art.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

LD Düsseldorf, August 25, 2026, Decision On Infringement Action, UPC_CFI_56/2025, UPC_CFI_864/2025

The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court addresses parallel infringement and revocation proceedings involving dental implant technology patent EP 3 402 420 B1. The case involves Versah LLC asserting patent rights against multiple defendants across nine European jurisdictions, with one defendant withdrawing following settlement while others continue to contest both infringement claims and patent validity.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

Court Of Appeal, August 21, 2026, Order On Application For Suspensive Effect, UPC_CoA_135/2026

Violation of principle of party disposition constitutes “manifest error” The Court of First Instance is strictly bound by the relief requested according to Art. 76(1) UPCA and cannot award more than is requested. In case a court awards more than is requested (e.g. change of “and”-warning into “or”-disclaimer) this constitutes a manifest error under Art. 76(1) UPCA (cf. Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_388/2024, Sibio v. Abbott).
European UnionIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg