Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 09 JULY 2026

Including A Video Recording Option In Advertisements: Non-Technical

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

The European Patent Office's Technical Board of Appeal examined whether a patent application for targeted advertisements with video recording functionality meets inventive step requirements. The decision analyzes how authentication performed by different entities and adding service options to advertisements relate to technical and non-technical features under patent law.

European UnionIntellectual Property
Patrick Heckeler
Patrick Heckeler
Author LinkedIn connections

This decision relates to a European patent application directed to targeted advertisements. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 2174/18 (Including a video recording option in advertisements/COMCAST) of 25.5.2022 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

Authentication is performed by different entities, however, this relates to a non-technical requirement.

Adding a service option to an advertisement is a known concept.

The invention

The invention relates to targeted advertisements which make users aware of entertainment content without them having to discover it themselves.

Figure 1 shows a “content page” (myCITY TIMES) from a “publisher” web server (www.pub.zzz) displayed in a web browser 100 on a user’s computer. It has an advertisement 102 from a third party ad “server” targeted at gardeners on behalf of a (video) “service provider” that offers the TV series “Gardening”. The basic idea of the invention is that the third party ad server determines

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

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

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

LD Düsseldorf, August 17, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1034/2025, UPC_CFI_931/2026

The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued an order addressing applications for protection of confidential information in patent infringement proceedings between Yangtze Memory Technologies and Micron Technology entities. The case involves European Patent EP 3 909 047 with jurisdictional implications across Germany and France under the UPC Agreement.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

Kraftwerk Sampling Ruling: Pastiche Finds Its Rhythm

Germany's highest civil court has ruled that an unlicensed sample from Kraftwerk's 1977 track "Metall auf Metall" used in a hip hop song qualifies as lawful pastiche under EU copyright law. This landmark decision, concluding a nearly 30-year legal dispute, establishes new parameters for when sampling can constitute creative engagement rather than mere copying, though it stops short of providing blanket protection for all unauthorized samples.
European UnionIntellectual Property
Lewis Silkin
Lewis Silkin
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

LD Düsseldorf, August 17, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1034/2025, UPC_CFI_931/2026

The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued an order addressing applications for protection of confidential information in patent infringement proceedings between Yangtze Memory Technologies and Micron Technology entities. The case involves European Patent EP 3 909 047 with jurisdictional implications across Germany and France under the UPC Agreement.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

CoA, August 17, 2026, UPC_CoA 365/2025 & UPC_CoA 367/2025

The Court of Appeal examines procedural and substantive issues arising from parallel infringement and revocation proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 356 109, with jurisdictional implications across multiple European states. The case involves complex questions of court procedure, patent validity challenges, and the application of the Unified Patent Court Agreement provisions.
GermanyLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
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

LD Helsinki, April 29, 2026, Decision On Infringement And Validity, UPC_CFI_214/2023, UPC_CFI_403/2025

The Helsinki Local Division of the Unified Patent Court examined infringement proceedings involving EP 3 295 663, with AIM Sport Development AG asserting patent rights against multiple TGI Sport entities across European jurisdictions. The case included a counterclaim for revocation, requiring the court to analyze validity under Articles 54, 56, and 123(2) EPC alongside infringement claims under Article 69 EPC.
FinlandIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg