The patentability of a method of presenting information can result from a special type of presentation that takes into account the characteristics of human perception and thus enables or improves the perceptibility of the information. In contrast, patentability cannot generally be derived from the actual content of the displayed information.
The extent to which information technology processes are patentable has not yet been fully clarified – and new questions are constantly arising due to technical developments. High court rulings regarding the patentability of developments in this area are therefore always welcome, at least if they contribute to increased legal certainty for Applicants and third parties confronted with IT patents.
In this context, the patentability of graphical user interfaces (GUIs) is an issue that has increasingly come up in recent years, particularly due to the rapid spread of touchscreens, and which will certainly remain topical in the coming years (keyword “virtual reality”). In a recent judgment, the German Federal Court of Justice ruled on the patentability of such an interface (LINK).
The subject matter of the corresponding European Patents EP 1 474 927 B1 is a method for displaying an image stream, whereby this stream is received by an ingestible capsule and whereby two partial image streams are simultaneously displayed on a screen, which comprise different images of the original stream. This enables a more effective evaluation of the original stream (if the operator is trained accordingly).
The Federal Court of Justice first comes to the conclusion that the simultaneous display of the two partial image streams is not a pure “reproduction of information” (excluded from patent protection). Although the method concerned the display of information, it was not a question of which information (which content) was displayed or emphasized, but how the display was carried out. In particular, the invention is concerned with how image content can be presented in a way that takes into account the physical conditions of human perception and reception of information and is aimed at enabling, improving or expediently shaping the perception of the displayed information by humans in a certain way in the first place. It is therefore a question here of solving a technical problem by technical means, and the corresponding features must be taken into account in the examination of inventive step. Since the prior art did not provide simultaneous representations of two partial image streams, the subject-matter was novel and inventive.
The judgment is interesting in that it clearly states that although technical features do not generally arise from the content of the information shown, a specific type of representation that takes into account the particularities of human perception can (co-)justify patentability.
It is to be expected that, particularly in the field of “virtual reality”, various display types and methods will be applied for patents, for which such features will ultimately determine patentability.
Links: juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py