Computer games and the EPO

Applicants familiar with the European Patent Office (EPO) may assume that Europe’s exclusions from patentability – which include “schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers [and] presentations of information” – combined with their sometimes ‘strict’ interpretation by examiners, create a difficult environment for obtaining video game-related patents.  However, as discussed in our earlier article back in December 2024, this is not necessarily the case. Indeed, although inventions directed purely to the ‘rules’ of a game may face challenges, inventions that can be framed around more “technical” aspects are often patentable.

Given that a single application filed at the EPO can provide protection in up to 46 countries – including the UK and all 27 EU member states – collectively representing a market of roughly 700 million people, European patents and applications may form an important part of IP portfolios protecting gaming-related technologies. This is borne out by filing statistics that indicate a steady rise in applications classified under A63F13 (“Video games”), reflecting the increasing importance of European patent protection for game-related technologies.

In addition to increased filings, we are also seeing a high number of grants, many for inventions residing in what may be considered more difficult technical areas. A few such inventions, for which EP patents have been granted in 2026, are discussed below.

EP4011466B1 (NINTENDO CO LTD)

EP4011466B1 relates to a control method for a virtual golf game. The claims refer to a “deviation indication image 328” that moves at random across a “movement gauge 320” (and, when, at an upper end of the movement gauge, also a “risk area 324”), ultimately causing a left or right deviation in a golf shot.

Although the invention might appear to relate primarily to game rules or the presentation of non-technical information, the applicant successfully argued a technical framing, with the Examiner acknowledging an inventive step on the following basis:

“The combination of distinguishing features cause that the gauge is separated into a basic area having a predefined width and a risk area is formed outside the basic area (at the longitudinal end of the gauge) with an increasing width. Thereby, the user can easily recognize how the probability of a deviation of the ball movement may occur dependent on the hitting power.

… The claimed generation and use of the gauge does not represent a purely aesthetic form improvement, but enables a clear and easy to understand user interface that supports the user in prioritizing between directional deviation and impact force in a particularly effective way.”

EP3694619B1 (WARNER BROS ENTERTAINMENT INC)

EP3694619B1 concerns a method for configuring a “flexible” video game using machine learning.

The claims refer to receiving both game play data (e.g., identification and descriptive information for player assets) and device-level data reflecting physical states of each respective client device (e.g., “its location, orientation, temperature, ambient light environment, acceleration, memory use, processor use…”).  A machine-learning algorithm is then used to detect a “complex association” between this combined data and a defined metric (e.g., length of engagement). The video game can then be reconfigured in a manner that is predicted to improve the defined metric.

This example illustrates an intersection between video games and machine learning.  Here, the Examiner recognised that a technical contribution lies in improving the performance of a video game after publication by responding not only to user behaviour when playing the video game, but also to the operational state of the user’s device.

EP4192594B1 (Riot Games Inc.)

EP4192594B1 relates to an improved targeting method for a multiplayer online video game played on a touchscreen mobile device.

The claims refer to iteratively modifying a “transparent target position” of a player object, firstly away from other player objects, and secondly back towards the object’s original visually depicted position. These iterative steps are repeated until a “predetermined closeness constraint” is violated. This ensures that the target position of the player object does not get too close to other objects on the display.

This invention demonstrates how a user input-related feature can be considered technical. The applicant argued that the invention allows an individual object in a cluster of objects to be more precisely selected on a screen of limited size, whilst preserving visual logic between the selection space and the relative visual positioning of the objects within each frame. The EPO accepted this hardware-linked technical framing.

Final thoughts

As these examples demonstrate, securing patent protection for video game-related inventions in Europe is certainly possible, provided the application identifies at least one feature with “technical character” – just as with any software-related invention. The key is articulating a technical problem and a corresponding technical solution, even when the invention originates in game mechanics or gameplay systems.

If you have questions about protecting video game technology in the UK, Europe, or worldwide, Venner Shipley’s dedicated experts are here to help. Please get in touch to discuss your intellectual property strategy.