Gaming Technologies, Business Processes & Web 3.0

Competing in an Interactive Environment

The objectives of web 3.0 focus on democratisation of the internet and allowing control of data to users. On the other hand, the Internet of Things “IoT” focuses on using data to drive decisions in digital transformation.

The issue of opening the floodgates to the granting more CII, businesses processes and gaming technology cases is finely balanced and politically charged. Consequently, at first instance, there is can be a reticence for examiners and examining divisions to stick their heads above the parapet, especially since the language of the UK and EPC statute includes an exclusion for a “scheme, rule or method for performing a mental act, playing a game or doing business, or a program for a computer” as well as the “presentation of information,” but only insofar as the invention relates to any one of these “as such.” We recognise that it is sometimes necessary to play the longer game and so we therefore seed ideas into applications to support the development of lines of arguments that express technical synergy in the implementation details. 

Changing the case law is not something that can be accomplished quickly, but it is inevitable and sometimes necessary. 

We therefore always operate with a degree of pragmatism in advising clients operating in these spheres of activity by providing objective and reasoned advice on success factors, and in the knowledge that cases may be lost whilst the right cases, if not immediately successful, might need to be argued at appeal. 

Our approach is always to understand the commercial objectives and the inherent and detailed nature of your invention. We assume nothing and understand that your view of your invention may not tally with ours and that our view may also develop. If we cannot see the technical reasons why data is being processed in a particular way and the benefits achieved by such processing, we will ask the questions to ensure that we build necessary supporting detail into each application. This reflects best practices and follows the directly reported statement from a senior examiner that, ‘when it comes to amendment and support, we see those attorneys who have taken care to understand the invention and those who simply write the claim first based on their own self-belief.’ 

The openness shown by these senior examiners reflects the good and useful lines of communication which we have established.