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

The firm is continuing its aggressive IP hiring streak with the addition of partner Matthew Rizzolo
Pantech counsel Shogo Matsunaga speaks exclusively to Managing IP about how his team proved Google’s unwillingness, and ultimately secured a landmark SEP settlement
New partners, including the firm’s first female head of a department, are eyeing a deeper focus on client understanding
Chunguang Hu of China PAT explains why his ‘insider’ experience as a patent examiner benefits clients and why he wants to debunk the myth that IP has limited value in China
Essenese Obhan shares his expansion plans and vision of creating a ‘one-stop shop’ for clients after Indian firms Obhan & Associates and Mason & Associates joined forces
From AI and the UPC to troublesome trademarks in China, experts name the IP trends likely to dominate 2026
Colm Murphy says he is keen to help clients navigate cross-border IP challenges in Europe
With 2025 behind us, US practitioners sit down with Managing IP to discuss the major IP moments from the year and what to expect in 2026
Large-scale transatlantic mergers will give US entities a strong foothold at the UPC, and could spark further fragmentation of European patent practices
This year’s most-read stories covered uncertainty at the USPTO, a potential boycott of a major international IP conference, rankings releases, and a contempt of court proceeding
Gift this article