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 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
Priya Nagpal, who this month became the firm’s eighth IP partner, says its cross-practice expertise in areas closely linked to IP was a key draw
Harm van der Heijden is to join Ankar AI as head of patent innovation after 17 years in private practice
Alabama attorney Miya Aladebumoye has launched a new firm built on ‘big law’ experience and a personal touch approach
A UKIPO campaign aimed at combating fakes in the pre-loved fashion market and registration of the first Portuguese craft and industrial geographical indication were also among the top talking points
Chris Adams, Managing IP’s research lead, joins us to explain what practitioners need to know ahead of our first rankings release of 2026
Another IP litigator joins Winston & Strawn in Dallas as firm seeks to keep pace with ‘rapid’ growth of Texas market
Anthony O'Malley will replace Andrew Blattman at IPH, which owns several large IP firms across Australia, Asia and Canada
Barry Greenbaum, partner at Olshan Frome Wolosky, explains how in-house teams can update their approach to brand development, and where AI can add value
Gift this article