Many of us use the Apple feature where a double-click of a button allows for payment via Apple Pay without even unlocking the iPhone. Interestingly, this very technology became the focus of a recent landmark decision by the Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO).

The essence of the invention (patent application EP3251068) lies in an improved method for contactless payment: the user does not need to fully unlock the smartphone and navigate to a payment app. The transaction can be initiated directly from the lock screen, while all other functions and personal data remain protected—a situation well-known to iPhone owners.

This specific case examined an instance where a fingerprint sensor is used to activate payment via a double-click within a short timeframe (e.g., 300 milliseconds). If you press once, the phone simply unlocks. If you press twice and the fingerprint is verified, the payment is triggered.

What Was the Problem?

Initially, patent examiners rejected the application, deeming the idea “obvious.” At that time, the iPhone 6 already existed, featuring both contactless payment and a fingerprint scanner. Examiners argued that the decision of “how and when” to enable payment was merely a designer’s whim or a matter of user preference rather than a technical achievement. They claimed that a double-click instead of a separate authorization step was merely “human interaction,” which did not qualify as a serious invention.

However, the Board of Appeal disagreed with this simplified interpretation. The judges ruled that combining a double-click with fingerprint verification was not just “mapping a button to a function,” but the resolution of a genuine engineering task.

The Court noted:

“Using a button on the iPhone to activate payment from the lock screen involved technical difficulties, as this same button and sensor were already used to unlock the device. These are technical challenges for a person skilled in the art, and the decision to use a double-press with a strictly defined interval is precisely a technical solution.”

Thus, the task was formulated not as a “user whim,” but as a “method to simplify payment with fingerprint authorization.” Apple argued that this makes payments faster and more secure. The Court recognized security as an additional bonus, but identified the primary advantage as the simplification of the process itself.

Why Was It Not “Obvious”?

The Court found the invention to be original (non-obvious) for two reasons:

1. Dual Role of Input: Previously, no one had proposed using the same input (the fingerprint sensor) for a dual role: both identity verification and payment activation without unlocking the device.

2. Technical Deterrence: The button on the iPhone 6 was already “overloaded” with functions. Typically, engineers avoid adding new functions to a button that already performs multiple tasks to avoid system conflicts. This acted as a “deterrent factor”—a specialist would be unlikely to add more functionality there unless they had devised a clever technical workaround.

The Court also observed that on the iPhone 6, one could already launch the camera from the lock screen (by swiping left). If engineers simply wanted to add payment haphazardly, they could have used a swipe or another gesture. The choice of a double-click on an already occupied button was a deliberate engineering step.

Key Takeaways

This case demonstrates a crucial point: even seemingly minor improvements in how we interact with gadgets can be patented.

• If a user interface improvement solves a technical problem (for example, a conflict between functions of a single button), it is eligible for protection.

• Even incremental steps in the development of known technologies can be considered an invention if they are backed by deep engineering logic rather than just a change in design.

Apple proved that the “double-click to pay” is not just a convenient feature, but an inventive way to make a single button securely perform different tasks based on the rhythm of the press.

Founder of Research & Patent group Intectica, author of patent algorithms for solving problems in the pharmaceutical industry, patent attorney certified in all intellectual property objects (Patents, Design, TM), with education in chemistry and law, chief expert of the patent institution of Ukraine UKRPATENT (1997-2004). Member of international organizations, including ECTA, PTMG, UAM, lecturer and blogger.