Parallel Reinsurance

• Published date: 08 May 2023
• Subject Matter: Insurance, Technology, Insurance Laws and Products, Reinsurance, New Technology
• Law Firm: Kilburn & Strode
• Author: Alexander Korenberg

In the past I have explored decisions explaining how otherwise abstract features, such as mathematical method computer program features, can imply technical considerations if they relate to or enable parallel processing and hence can give rise to the all-important technical effect. Indeed, this has been successfully used in prosecution to protect fundamental machine learning innovation. The recent decision T 2910/19 is an example of a, per se non-technical, mathematical method of evaluating insurance claims, which nevertheless was implemented based on technical consideration so that the implementation had a technical effect. This decision provides another useful example of the technical effect of implementing mathematical methods related to parallel processing. There are also some nuggets as to how the Board exercised its discretion in relation to some procedural aspects.

In the first-instance decision, the Examining Division found that the claimed method of evaluating insurance claims did not acquire technical character by using a mathematical method, nor by relating to insurance risks from natural disasters. The first instance thus found that the claimed method corresponded to no more than the implementation of non-technical aspects on a general-purpose parallel processing system such as those disclosed in the cited documents. There being no technical effect beyond the obvious implementation using known technical means, the first instance refused the application for lack of inventive step. The applicant made arguments as to why the particular claimed assignment scheme for assigning insured objects to processors was technical, specifically because it considered which processors had the functions needed for processing the object already in their cache. The Examining Division , however, saw the assignment of insured objects to processors as no more than an administrative choice and so did not buy that there was a technical effect. In the appeal hearing, the applicant was able to convince the Board that the scheme of assigning objects to processors, which was not disclosed in the cited documents, had a technical effect, ultimately leading to the appeal succeeding.

Specifically, the applicant argued, if objects were assigned naively, for example in the order in which they arrived, they would be assigned to processors which do not yet have the required function in their cache, requiring a slow memory access to load the function into cache. This overhead was...