För att en uppfinning ska anses vara patenterbar uppställer artikel 52(1) EPC fyra rekvisit. Det ska vara en uppfinning som är ny, har uppfinningshöjd och är industriellt tillämpbar. Uppfinningsrekvisitet finns inte definierat i EPC utan har utvecklats genom praxis. För att en uppfinning ska anses vara en patenterbar uppfinning ska den ha teknisk karaktär. Vad som utgör teknisk karaktär har även det utvecklats genom praxis. En patenterbar uppfinning ska avse den tekniska ämnessfären. Detta kommer till uttryck i artikel 52(2) EPC som genom en inte uttömmande lista definierar vad som inte ska anses vara en uppfinning. Det framgår av artikel 52(2)(c) och (3) EPC att datorprogram ”som sådana” inte är patenterbara uppfinningar. Trots det kan vissa datorprogramrelaterade uppfinningar patenteras. Syftet med denna uppsats är att redogöra för EPO:s utveckling av patent på datorprogram och mer specifikt hur kravet på teknisk karaktär har förändrats för att avgöra om uppfinningsrekvisitet i artikel 52(1) EPC är uppfyllt. Bedömningen av teknisk karaktär för bedömningen av uppfinningsrekvisitet i artikel 52(2) EPC har utvecklats från en bedömning av det tekniska bidraget i VICOM-målet till att bedöma ytterligare teknisk effekt, tekniska medel och fysiska ting i IBM-målet, Pension Benefit-målet och Hitachi-målet. Denna utveckling har inte medfört någon minskning av kravet på teknisk karaktär, utan har gjort uppfinningsbegreppet bredare med anledning av den utveckling som skett på området och på så vis anses flera uppfinningar ha teknisk karaktär. Effekten av utvecklingen i praxis är att det anses viktigare att bedöma kravet på uppfinningshöjd. Kravet på uppfinningshöjd är speciellt viktigt inom tekniska områden med en snabb utveckling eftersom det annars finns en stor risk att utvecklingen blockeras. / For an invention to patentable, article 52(1) EPC require four criteria to be fulfilled. It should be an invention, that is new, involve an inventive step and is susceptible of industrial application. The criteria of invention is not defined in the EPC, but has been developed through case law. An invention need to have technical character for it to be patentable. What constitutes technical character has also been defined through case law. A patentable invention should be in the field of technology. This is expressed in article 52(2) EPC which defines what should not be seen as an invention. Article 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC states that a program for computers as such is not a patentable invention. The purpose with this thesis is to analyze the EPO case law on programs for computers and more specifically how the concept of technical character has changed. The assessment of technical character required for a patentable invention has developed from assessing the technical contribution in VICOM to assessing further technical effect, technical means and physical products in IBM, Pension Benefit Systems and Hitachi. The development has not meant any decrease in assessing technical character, but instead made the criteria of invention broader because of the development in the field of computer programs. The effect of the case law development has meant a shift from assessing invention to assessing inventive step. The criterion for inventive step is especially important in fields where technical development moves rapidly, otherwise there is a risk of blocking development.

<p>There is no commonly accepted definition of a business method. It ought to consist of a method or a process of doing business. Business methods constitutes a broad category of patents, it is hard to tell exactly what can be interpreted in to the term. Most of the world's legal systems have made an exception from patentability for business methods. In the USA the exception was abolished in a case 1998. Business methods were to be examined on the same criteria as other patent categories. Methods and processes, that traditionally has not been excepted from patentability, like methods for investing capital in financial markets, can now be issued patents in the USA. The business method patents could bring substantial economic values to the patent holder, and have a great impact on the development of internet-related businesses. Sweden and the European Patent Organization (EPO), which in this paper represents Europe, also has exceptions from patentability for business methods, but they have not yet been examined in a court of law. There are signs that the EPO, which includes Sweden, has taken a path similar to that of the USA.</p>

There is no commonly accepted definition of a business method. It ought to consist of a method or a process of doing business. Business methods constitutes a broad category of patents, it is hard to tell exactly what can be interpreted in to the term. Most of the world's legal systems have made an exception from patentability for business methods. In the USA the exception was abolished in a case 1998. Business methods were to be examined on the same criteria as other patent categories. Methods and processes, that traditionally has not been excepted from patentability, like methods for investing capital in financial markets, can now be issued patents in the USA. The business method patents could bring substantial economic values to the patent holder, and have a great impact on the development of internet-related businesses. Sweden and the European Patent Organization (EPO), which in this paper represents Europe, also has exceptions from patentability for business methods, but they have not yet been examined in a court of law. There are signs that the EPO, which includes Sweden, has taken a path similar to that of the USA.

Le droit des brevets a pour objet l’appropriation d’enseignements techniques nouveaux afin d’encourager le développement de la recherche dans le domaine de la technique. Ainsi, la technicité constitue une condition fondamentale de l’apparition du droit de brevet. Cependant, la définition de ce qu’est la technique en droit des brevets exige, au préalable, de déterminer quelle est sa fonction normative. Cette fonction varie selon la conception de la propriété retenue. L’approche matérialiste de la propriété en fait une limite à l’appropriation tandis que l’approche idéaliste en fait un critère d’appropriation de la chose. Selon la première approche, la propriété ne concerne que des choses corporelles et des droits. L’invention est alors confondue avec une chose corporelle dont elle autorise la réalisation. La technicité est le critère de la corporéité, c’est une limite à l’appropriation. Cette approche se traduit par l’établissement d’un domaine de la brevetabilité défini par une énumération des choses non appropriables et par une appréciation de la technicité au niveau d’une chose corporelle que la réalisation de l’invention permet. Selon la seconde approche, qui emporte notre conviction, la propriété peut porter sur des choses corporelles et sur des choses incorporelles. La technicité constitue un critère de l’appropriation. Cette approche se traduit par la suppression du domaine de la brevetabilité et par une appréciation de la technicité au niveau de la chose incorporelle de l’invention. / The object of patent law is the appropriation of novel technical teachings in order to support technological development. Thus, the technicality is a fundamental condition of the patent right appearance. However, the definition of what technique is in patent law demands, at first, to fix what its normative function is. This function varies depending on the property conception retained. The materialist approach of property views it as a limit to appropriation, while the idealist views it as a criterion of appropriation.According to the first approach, the property only concerns corporal things and rights. Then the invention is mixed up with a corporal thing that its realization allowed. The technicality is the criterion of corporality, it is a limit to the appropriation. This approach is realized by the establishment of the domain of patentability, which is defined by a list of objects that are not appropriable and by the assessment of the technicality of the invention at the latest stage of realization the invention allows.According to the second approach, which we are defending, the property can concern either corporal or incorporal things. Then the invention is an incorporal thing. The technicality is a criterion of the appropriation. This approach is realized by the suppression of the domain of patentability and by the assessment of the technicality of the invention at the non-tangible stage.