Abstract on Article 056 EPC for the decision T0185/25 of 30.10.2025

In T 185/25, the claimed invention related to a computer-implemented method for facilitating a player’s device to execute an interactive live game. A key aspect was the synchronisation between a live game video stream (including video from a live studio), and game events generated by server logic in response to player inputs. The opposition division had revoked the patent for lack of inventive step, and the proprietor had appealed. At the request of the Unified Patent Court, where parallel proceedings involving the opposed patent were pending, the board accelerated these appeal proceedings. The prior art showed a gaming system including a live gaming studio capturing video streamed to players, game events and gaming activity information also distributed to players. Cuepoints in the video stream were used to aid synchronisation between video and game events at the player’s device. In comparing the claimed invention with the closest prior art document D5, the board identified two distinctive features of claim 1: Regarding distinguishing feature (i), the opposition division and the parties agreed that the effect provided by this feature was that it enhanced the user experience in playing the game as it amplified the sensation that they participate in a live game. The board had doubts whether this could be considered a technical effect. This effect was obtained by the content of the game display data, i.e. that the game display data are related to the game being executed (as in claim 1) in contrast to operator specific data unrelated to the played game (as in D5). The only difference lay in the cognitive content of the game display data. In the board's view, this feature related to presentation of information as such and therefore could not be considered to contribute to an inventive step within the meaning of Art. 56 EPC. Even if the identified effect were to be considered a technical effect, the board agreed with the opposition division that it would be obvious for the skilled person to replace the displayed operator specific content with content related to the game being executed in order to enhance the player's experience. Regarding feature (ii), the board held that synchronisation as such is a technical problem, i.e. aligning asynchronously received game events and video. The claimed use of timestamps (event timestamps and video timestamps) is a method to solve this synchronisation problem. However, the board found that there was no particular technical advantage of using timestamps over the cuepoint method in the prior art. Both ways result in the player’s device synchronising game events with video. Therefore, the only technical effect of distinguishing feature (ii) was to provide an alternative way of facilitating the synchronisation of the live game video stream and the game events at the player's device. According to the board, there was no particular technical advantage by using the solution of the claimed method rather than the one of prior art D5. The parties did not identify any such advantages, either. The board saw the only technical effect of this feature as offering an alternative synchronisation method – not a technical improvement over the prior art. The board upheld the opposition division’s finding that the claimed subject-matter lacked inventive step (Art. 56 EPC).