EPO: Applicant is responsible for checking patent text

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: Applicant is responsible for checking patent text

Pursuant to Rule 71(3) of the European Patent Convention (EPC), towards the termination of the examination proceedings, the Examining Division of the European Patent Office (EPO) shall inform the applicant of the text in which it intends to grant the European patent. Following Rule 71(5) EPC, if the applicant subsequently pays the grant and publishing fees and files the required translations of the claims, he shall be deemed to have approved the text intended for grant.

In examination proceedings pertaining to EP 2 396 848, in the communication under Rule 71(3) EPC, the Examining Division made reference to the claims submitted by the applicant in the list of documents intended for grant. However, the EPO had left out parts of the claims from the text intended for grant itself. The applicant apparently overlooked the flaw and proceeded by complying with the provisions of Rule 71 EPC, and the patent was subsequently granted in a form from which parts of the claims were missing.

Following the issue of the printed patent, the B1 publication, the applicant requested correction under either one of Rules 139 or 140 EPC, correction of a purported printing error, or that the decision to grant the patent be considered null and void. Neither the Examining Division nor the Board of Appeal allowed either of these requests. In its decision T 506/16, the Board of Appeal notes that:

  • Rule 140 EPC is not available for correcting patents in accordance with Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G 1/10.

  • Rule 139 EPC is only applicable to documents filed with the EPO, i.e. not to documents produced by the EPO.

  • The obligation to check the text in which the patent will be granted lies with the applicant.

  • The decision to grant did not infringe the principle of good faith and the protection of the legitimate expectations of the users of the EPO.

The applicant's attempt to reinstate the missing parts of the claims did not thus succeed, despite the fact that it was the EPO's Examining Division that included an incomplete set of claims in the text intended for grant.

farrington.jpg

Jakob Pade Frederiksen


Inspicos P/SKogle Allé 2DK-2970 HoersholmCopenhagen, DenmarkTel: +45 7070 2422Fax: +45 7070 2423info@inspicos.comwww.inspicos.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A team from Addleshaw Goddard secured victory for the changing robe brand, following a trial against competitor D-Robe
Bird & Bird, Brinkhof and Bardehle Pagenberg were successful at the Court of Appeal, while there was a partial victory for Amazon in a case concerning audio recordings
Following the anniversary of Venner Shipley and AA Thornton's merger, Ian Gill recalls the initial trepidation about working for his spouse and offers tips for those who may find their personal and professional worlds colliding
Two partners have departed DLA Piper to join Squire Patton Boggs and Blank Rome in San Francisco and Chicago, respectively
Practitioners say a 32% rise in court fees is somewhat expected to maintain the UPC’s strong start, but some warn that SME clients could be squeezed out
Swati Sharma and Revanta Mathur at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas explain how they overcame IP office objections to secure victory for a tyre manufacturer
Claudiu Feraru, founder of Feraru IP, discusses the benefits of a varied IP practice and why junior practitioners should learn from every case
In the ninth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP & ME, a community focused on ethnic minority IP professionals
Firms that made strategic PTAB hires say that insider expertise is becoming more valuable in the wake of USPTO changes
Aled Richards-Jones, a litigator and qualified barrister, is the fourth partner to join the firm’s growing patent litigation team this year
Gift this article