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

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

Law firms across the world are seemingly united in their reluctance to give juniors a chance, which shouldn’t be the case
In-house counsel say they want more visibility for the next generation of lawyers, but private practice practitioners believe jurisdictional challenges stand in their way
IP STARS, Managing IP’s accreditation title, reveals this year’s first rankings, showing how firms in Asia-Pacific are performing across a range of practice areas
A dispute over buggies, a decision on the UPC’s jurisdiction, and the formal launch of the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre were among the top developments
Sofie McPherson says she is excited to work at a firm that offers an integrated approach between attorneys and litigators
Personality rights are among several measures the government must take to maximise the potential of the music licensing market, say lawyers
Pascal Faure, director general of INPI, explains why keeping a cool head is key, and discusses plans to leverage IP assets to secure funding
Lawyers at Carpmaels & Ransford explain how the healthcare sector has not simply participated in the UPC’s early years, but actively shaped it
The firm has hired former in-house counsel Quintin Cassady to lead the launch of the new office
The combined firm has strong IP credentials across the US, Middle East, UK and Europe, despite Taylor Wessing’s German and French practices not joining
Gift this article