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

Former in-house counsel Andriana Shultz Daly has returned to the firm with client-side insight and courtroom skills to build the firm’s life sciences practice
The LMG Life Sciences Awards announces the 2025 winners for the 13th annual awards!
News of AI company Cerence accusing Apple of patent infringement and a hiring update from Lewis Silkin were also among the top talking points
The addition of BH EVS as a licensee enhances the outreach of the Qi pool, which now licenses nearly half of the global auto supplier market
Only a few international law firms have made a mark in Australia’s IP market, but Rouse entering the field could be a sign of changing times
Caroline Casalonga reflects on her journey as the French firm’s first female leader and shares her dream of building the outfit into a major European independent IP practice
Firm says the hire of Laura Ramsay will help consolidate its position as a ‘market leader’ for premium IP work
CEO Martyn Fish reflects on the past as HGF celebrates its 30th anniversary and discusses how PE investment has helped the firm’s people and clients
The 105-year-old IP firm Wrays and related business Aperture Insight will join Rouse but operate independently
The winners will be revealed during a ceremony in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, on November 6
Gift this article