Turkey: Article 138/3 of EPC applies during pending proceedings

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

Cookies Settings

Turkey: Article 138/3 of EPC applies during pending proceedings

As Turkey is a member of EPC, any provision of the EPC has the power of national law and can be directly applicable for European patents validated in Turkey. However as is well known, the EPC does not have many provisions binding the national courts. One of them is Article 138/3 which gives the European patent owner the right to limit the patent in the event of an invalidation action and orders the national court to take the limited version of the patent as the basis of invalidation proceedings.

This provision is inconsistent with the national patent law of Turkey. National law permits any kind of amendment in the patent document only during the proceedings before the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office (TPTO) and explicitly forbids any amendment – including limitation – after grant of the patent.

Therefore, the IP courts and the TPTO have rejected applying Article 138/3 in national invalidity proceedings until now. However very recently one of the IP courts in Istanbul applied Article 138/3 and accepted claim limitation in the national proceedings.

The invalidation action was filed right after the first grant decision set by the EPO; however the EPO continued with opposition and then appeal proceedings which are still pending. The patent was maintained on the basis of an auxiliary request, which limits the scope of the patent. However as an appeal is continuing the limitation has not been published in the official bulletin yet and therefore the limitation could not be validated in Turkey.

The patent owner first requested the court to wait for the outcome of the EPO proceedings and not to render a final decision until the end of the EPO proceedings. However although the Opposition Division (OD) maintained the patent on the basis of the auxiliary request the patent holder was of the opinion that the first granted claim set does meet the patentability criteria,and he also applied to appeal with other opponents.

Since the IP Court decided not to wait for the EPO proceedings and decided to render its final decision, as a last attempt to save the patent, the patent owner filed an application for the limitation of the claim set under Article 138/3 of the EPC. Limitation was based on the claim as allowed by the OD.

Surprisingly but fairly the Court and the TPTO accepted the claim limitation request of the patent holder. It was important to emphasise to the court that the claim set has become identical with the limited set of claims before the EPO.

This may lead us to a new era where there is parallelism between EPC and Turkish patent legislation and also the procedures to obtain a patent will complete each other resulting in consistency between the claims of Turkish and referred European patent.

The recent decision of the IP Court and TPTO may also reduce the number of invalidation cases and save patent holders in the same situation from the invalidation of their patents by limiting the claims of the patent before EPO proceedings were resulted or more importantly after EPO proceedings were already finalised.

Erciyas

Selin Sinem Erciyas

Aysel Korkmaz


Gün + PartnersKore Şehitleri Cad. 17Zincirlikuyu 34394İstanbul, TurkeyTel: + (90) (212) 354 00 00Fax: + (90) (212) 274 20 95gun@gun.av.trgun.av.tr

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Another firm sets up shop in Dallas, bringing its patent disputes capabilities to one of the US’s busiest litigation venues
Entrepreneurial IP lawyers are still launching specialist firms, but increasingly with larger teams, broader coverage and greater infrastructure than the boutique model once implied
Jevon Louis explains how Covid led to a focus on local clients, discusses why mediation is successful in Singapore and reflects on the growing demand for AI advice
An increase in instructions from domestic companies and litigation for international clients are driving success for the Chinese IP firm, according to two lead partners
Ankur Sangal said he wants his team, nearly 30-strong already, to respond to a growing demand for specialist, commercially focused IP advice in a ‘rapidly evolving’ Indian market
As AI adoption accelerates across corporate IP departments, Simon Webster, president of IP at Clarivate, argues that success will depend less on technology alone and more on data quality, workflow design, and organisational readiness
After months of speculation over his next move, former Texas patent judge Alan Albright has found a new home at the firm’s Austin office
Law firms can now participate in the research for the Managing IP Awards and IP STARS rankings
The firm has hired former Norton Rose Fulbright patent prosecution leader Ronak Kalhor-Witzel as it seeks to strengthen its position in high-value technology, UPC and international patent matters
Angela Dunning shares why it’s an exciting time to be practising at the intersection of AI and IP, where the law is actively being made
Gift this article