It was interesting to review a recent case (BL O/0390/25) before the
The patent relates to a real-world gathering-style game, using augmented or mixed reality devices, with the aim being for players to gather at a particular location. These types of game have gained a lot of traction recently, with perhaps the most famous example being that of Pokémon GO. It is not surprising to see patent applications in this space given that the games do tend to have some real-world element to them, which can often lead to an invention being considered more than just a computer program or game.
There are some exclusions preventing certain types of subject matter from being patented in the
The UKIPO applies a four-step test to determine if an invention is technical in nature, which in broad terms includes:
- Understanding the claimed invention.
- What is the contribution over the state of the art (i.e. what is new)?
- Does the contribution fall within excluded subject matter (e.g. is it solely a method of playing a game or computer program, as such)?
- Is the contribution actually technical in nature?
For step one, and according to the Hearing Officer of the UKIPO:
"The application concerns a type of online video game known as an 'open world' game, in which characters controlled by players can move freely in a game space and meet other characters. A problem with this type of game is that, during play, distances between the positions of players' characters can increase, leading to decreased opportunities for encounters between characters. This can result in reduced enjoyment of the game. The invention seeks to address how this problem can be overcome."
The Hearing Officer considered the contribution at step 2 to be:
"a system arranged to run a gathering event for a number of players in real space (the real world), wherein the system determines whether the gathering event has taken place successfully by checking whether enough players have reached the gathering location."
Crucially, this differed from the contribution put forward by the applicant's attorney, who tried to include determining the location of real people in the real world, and generally tried to make the contribution appear more technical in nature, as expected.
At step 3, the gaming exclusion was dealt with first, followed by computer programs.
The Hearing Officer thought that meeting in the real world, being an objective of the game, is a method of playing a game rather than being a technical feature going beyond what occurs on the devices. It was also held that determining the success or failure of the gathering event based on positions of users is also game play and nothing more.
On the computer program question, the contribution was thought to be achieved using programs running on standard hardware, to provide maps to the users' devices, and monitoring the locations of the users to determine success/failure. This was held to be computer programs as such, because nothing beyond the game play could be attributed to these features, bearing in mind examples in the state of the art of GPS positioning systems and the display of maps on electronic devices.
Finally, the Hearing Officer considered for completeness if anything technical could be attributed to the contribution.
The patent application was refused for being directed to the excluded subject matter of both a method for playing a game and a computer program, as such. In the present case, this was perhaps expected. However, applicants should not assume that games/software are always excluded from patentability, and in the present case the applicant may choose to pursue an appeal which may result in a different outcome.
For example, case T 0012/08 before the Technical
In another EPO case, T 0928/03 related to
The first feature implied that the size of the player indicator was increased, thus improving the usability of the graphical user interface, while solving the problem of the indicator being concealed by a neighbouring player, which often happened with the triangular indicator due to its small size. The ring-shape on its own was considered aesthetic, and the location of the indicator at the player's foot was driven by the rules of the game. However, taken together, surrounding the player's foot with a ring-shaped player indicator resulted in an improved user interface.
The second feature was considered to be technical for highlighting a second point of interest (the player to pass to) to draw the user's attention to this, and when the player was off screen, to solve the problem of displaying the zoomed in view of the player in possession of the ball but wanting to indicate a more complete view showing the easiest possible pass to a team mate. Resolving this by having an arrow at the edge of the display allowed the zoomed in view of the player in possession to be maintained, whilst keeping an overview of a direction in which to pass the ball.
The question of excluded subject matter is often finely balanced, particularly for computer-implemented inventions. At
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.
Mr
The Beacon
Tel: 2074200000
Fax: 207836339
E-mail: nbutson@marks-clerk.com
URL: www.marks-clerk.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2025 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source
