EPO: A golden standard

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

EPO: A golden standard

It is well known that the EPO generally applies a rather strict approach when examining whether or not amendments made after filing extend beyond the contents of the application as filed. One frequently occurring type of claim amendment is the replacement or removal of a feature from a claim. According to a landmark decision, T 331/87 of 1989, the replacement or removal of a feature may not violate the provision governing added subject-matter (article 123(2) EPC) if the skilled person would directly and unambiguously recognise that:

  • the feature was not explained as essential in the application as filed;

  • the feature is not indispensable for the function of the invention; or

  • the replacement or removal requires no real modification of other features to compensate for the change.

The above, so-called essentiality test developed in T 331/87 and cited in the EPO's Guidelines for Examination, has however been challenged in a number of recent decisions. Most recently, in decision T 1852/13 of January 31 2017 (issued on March 31 2017) one of the EPO's technical appeal boards provides a detailed and substantiated criticism of the essentiality test. According to the board, the "gold standard" for assessment of added matter applies; according to this standard, an amendment does not add matter beyond the contents of the application as filed if the skilled person at the filing date, applying his common general knowledge, would directly and unambiguously derive the amendment from the application as filed. In decision T 1852/13 the deciding board expresses the view that the essentiality test is neither compatible with the gold standard nor with the requirements for entitlement to priority laid down by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in decision G 2/98. The board having decided T 1852/13 even goes as far as to express that "the essentiality test is no longer to be applied".

The legal trend reinforced by decision T 1852/13 certainly does not make life easier for applicants desiring to remove or replace features from claims.

frederiksen.jpg

Jakob Pade Frederiksen

Inspicos P/S

Kogle Allé 2

DK-2970 Hoersholm

Copenhagen, Denmark

Tel: +45 7070 2422

Fax: +45 7070 2423

info@inspicos.com

www.inspicos.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel explain how the USPTO’s decision to discretionarily deny institution of a PTAB case affects their advice to clients
The Life Sciences Awards announces the winners for the 6th annual awards
The UPC’s plans to roll out its new Case Management System and a setback for TikTok in India were also among the top talking points
Trademark specialist Jonathan Thomas says he’s excited to introduce his clients to other areas of Greenberg Traurig’s practice
Counsel at firms responsible for managing the highest number of registered trademarks explain the secrets behind staying organised and keeping the work flowing in
Attorneys explain what stakeholders should know about Patent Term Adjustments in Brazil, more than three years after a landmark Brazilian Supreme Court ruling
New categories have been added to reflect a changing legal and social landscape
Three sources explain why a notification by Nanjing’s IP centre in China banning AI use in patent drafting is too broad and could be difficult to enforce
Sheppard Mullin’s latest hires explain why the firm's industry expertise impressed them
Elizabeth Godfrey explains why she doesn’t believe in a ‘salesperson’ approach to BD, and reveals how AI is playing an important role at Davies Collison Cave
Gift this article