The COMVIK approach explained 

Established by the EPO Boards of Appeal in T641/00 (COMVIK) and later affirmed by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in G1/19, the COMVIK framework governs the assessment of inventive step for claims containing both technical and non-technical features.

Under this framework, it is perfectly legitimate for a claim to mix technical and non-technical elements; a common reality for software and digital inventions. However, to acknowledge an inventive step under the European Patent Convention (EPC), there must be a non-obvious technical solution to a technical problem.

Crucially, when assessing inventive step, examiners and judges must evaluate all features that contribute to the technical character of the invention. This includes features that might be deemed non-technical in isolation (such as the presentation of information, mathematical methods, or business rules) but which interact with the rest of the claim to produce a technical effect serving a technical purpose. Conversely, features that solve only a non-technical problem cannot support an inventive step.

The Abbott v Sinocare decision 

The dispute in Abbott v Sinocare centred around a patent for a continuous glucose monitoring system configured to process biological data and display a timeline graph screen upon a user actuating an input button.

The Hague Local Division initially bypassed the issue of inventive step, concluding that the patent was probably not infringed. The Court of Appeal, addressing the issue for the first time, took the opportunity to firmly plant the COMVIK framework into UPC jurisprudence. In Headnote 1 of the decision, the court stated: “A claim feature should not be excluded from the assessment of inventive step merely because it is a non-technical feature, i.e. a feature which, on its own, would be considered a “non-invention” under Art. 52(2) EPC. A feature that is non-technical as such may still contribute to the technical character of the claimed invention as a whole by its interaction with the other claim features. Therefore, the interrelationship and functioning of the claim features must be assessed together.”

Applying this test to the case at hand, the court found that the disputed timeline graph features were technical measures. They yielded the technical effect of “improved assistance to the user’s diabetes control” by allowing users to identify how certain events impacted their glucose levels. The defendants argued that deciding what action to take based on the display was a mental, non-technical act by the user. However, the court held that the fact a user ultimately makes a cognitive decision based on the system’s output does not strip the display features of their technical character, as the system generates the relevant displays through technical means and user interaction.

Takeaways for patentees and practitioners 

The UPC’s explicit adoption of the EPO’s approach is a substantial win for legal certainty in the European patent landscape.

By confirming that the COMVIK approach applies in UPC litigation, the Court of Appeal has effectively opened the door for litigants to rely on over two decades of extensive case law developed by the EPO Boards of Appeal. For innovators in software, artificial intelligence (AI), and digital health, this ruling is highly reassuring. It confirms that the familiar strategies used for drafting and prosecuting computer-implemented inventions at the EPO will translate seamlessly into robust, predictable enforcement strategies before the UPC.

Case details at a glance

Jurisdiction: UPC
Decision level: Court of Appeal
Parties: Abbott Diabetes Care Inc v Sinocare Inc and A Menarini Diagnostics srl 
Citation: UPC_CoA_901/2025
Date: 17 April 2026
Decision: dycip.com/upc-coa-901-2025