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

Licensing chief Patrik Hammarén also reveals that the company will rename its IPR business to better reflect its role in defining standards
The acquisition of Pecher & Partners follows the firm’s earlier expansion into litigation to create a ‘one-stop shop’
News of Via Licensing Alliance launching its first semiconductor patent pool and INTA electing a new president were also among the top talking points
Submit your nominations to this year's WIBL Americas Awards by January 23
The 2026 Life Sciences EMEA Awards is now open for entries. We are looking forward to reviewing and celebrating the industry's most impressive achievements and landmarks from the past year.
The tie-up between Perkins Coie and Ashurst may generate some striking numbers, but independent IP firms need not worry yet, according to practitioners
Perkins Coie’s US patent prosecution strength could provide Ashurst with an opportunity to enter an untapped market in Australia, but it may not be easy
Mitesh Patel at Reed Smith outlines why the US Copyright Office and courts have so far dismissed AI authorship and how inventors can protect AI-generated works
Xia Zheng, founder of AFD China, discusses balancing legal work with BD, new approaches to complex challenges, and the dangers of ‘over-optimism’
A dispute involving semiconductor technology and a partner's move from Hoffman Eitle to Hoyng Rokh Monegier were also among the top talking points
Gift this article