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 2026

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

Cookies Settings

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

Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
David Rodrigues and Evan Lazerowitz – attorneys at Robinson & Cole – offer practical guidance on the steps a business might consider to preserve and maximise IP value before entering financial distress or insolvency
Daniel Law CEO Alicia Daniel-Shores may have stepped into a family business, but she has spent two decades building her own vision around technology and litigation
Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
Gift this article