← Back to Software patents in Europe

The Further Technical Effect

Written from EPO Guidelines G-II 3.6. Office guidelines, and this site has no European practitioner. Current as of 22 August 2026.

What it says

A program escapes the European exclusion if it produces a further technical effect when run: an effect going beyond the normal physical interactions between the program and the computer. Control of a technical process, or of the internal functioning of the computer, counts.

The European exclusion applies to a computer program as such. This is where the Office says what falls outside that.

Which claim you are looking at decides whether this question arises at all. The guidelines distinguish a computer program from a computer-implemented method: the first is "a sequence of computer-executable instructions specifying a method," the second is "a method actually performed on a computer." And claims directed to a computer-implemented method, a computer-readable storage medium or a device "cannot be objected to under Art. 52(2) and Art. 52(3)", because any method using technical means, and any technical means itself, have technical character. The further-technical-effect requirement is how a claim to a program escapes the exclusion. It is not a hurdle every software claim has to clear.

A program has technical character, and so escapes the exclusion, if it produces a further technical effect when run: an effect going beyond the normal physical interactions between the program and the computer.

Currents flowing in a processor do not count, because every program causes those. Control of a technical process does count, and so does control of the internal functioning of the computer itself.

Two limits follow that engineers usually get wrong. The question is assessed without reference to the prior art, so being faster than an earlier program is not itself a further technical effect. And the effect has to be technical, which is a category rather than a synonym for useful.

That first limit is the one worth sitting with, because performance improvement is the most common way an engineer would describe why their software matters.

And clearing Article 52 is the cheap half. What survives the exclusion still has to satisfy inventive step, which is where COMVIK does its work and where the technical contribution is actually weighed. A claim can pass this stage and lose at the next one.

What This Does Not Decide

Whether your program has technical character is not answerable here. This site has no European practitioner, which the Article 52 page says as well. These guidelines are applied to claims by people qualified in that system.
  • It does not say whether any program has technical character or would be excluded.
  • It does not say a claim that clears Article 52 is patentable. Novelty, inventive step and sufficiency all remain, and inventive step is where the harder question sits.
  • It does not say that a performance improvement never contributes. It says the assessment is made without reference to the prior art, which is a different point.
  • These are Office guidelines, not a court ruling, and not United States law.

Educational, not legal advice. Whether any of this reaches a particular application is a determination for a registered patent practitioner.

Sources