Europe: Restrictions on the right to amend patent claims

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Europe: Restrictions on the right to amend patent claims

In its decision HIGH POINT SARL v KPN BV, the Dutch Supreme Court held that the right of the patentee to limit a European patent before the national courts, as defined by the European convention (EPC) article 137(3), may be restricted by national procedural conditions. Accordingly, the Dutch courts may refuse to consider limited claims that give rise to a new debate about patent validity after filing the grounds of appeal.

The extent of the right to limit the claims was a matter of interpretation of the EPC. The Supreme Court found that the plain text of article 137(3) EPC did not exclude imposing national procedural conditions on the right to limit the patent. The legislative history did not show an intention to harmonise procedural law in this respect. The legislator introduced article 137(3) EPC only because the right to limit the patent claims was not, or insufficiently, guaranteed in some of the contracting states. Furthermore, the court noted that use of procedural conditions was accepted in other states.

The Supreme Court upheld the criteria used by the court of appeal for denying the right to limit the patent. The court of appeal's reason for denying this right was that the limitation would give rise to a new debate about validity after filing the grounds of appeal. The court of appeal was allowed to find this based on the fact that the added limitation was not used for an elaboration or more accurate definition of an earlier argument, and that it introduced a wholly new element in the proceedings.

Lars de Haas


V.O.Carnegieplein 5, 2517 KJThe HagueThe NetherlandsTel: +31 70 416 67 11Fax: +31 70 416 67 99info@vo.euwww.vo.eu

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The UK-India trade deal doesn’t mention legal services, showing India has again failed to agree on a move that could help foreign firms and local practitioners
Eva-Maria Strobel reveals some of the firm’s IP achievements and its approach to client relationships
Lateral hires at Thompson Hine and Pierson Ferdinand said they were inspired by fresh business opportunities and innovative strategies at their new firms
The launch of a new IP insurance product and INTA hiring a former USPTO commissioner were also among the top talking points this week
The firm explains how it secured a $170.6 million verdict against the government in a patent dispute surrounding airport technology, and why the case led to interest from other inventors
Developments of note included the court partially allowing a claim concerning confidentiality clubs and a decision involving technology used in football matches
The firm said adding capability in the French capital completes its coverage of all major patent litigation jurisdictions as it strives for UPC excellence
Marc Fenster explains how keeping the jury focused on the most relevant facts helped secure a $279m win for his client against Samsung
Clients are divided on what externally funded IP firms bring to the table, so those firms must prove why the benefits outweigh the downsides
Rahul Bhartiya, AI coordinator at the EUIPO, discusses the office’s strategy, collaboration with other IP offices, and getting rid of routine tasks
Gift this article