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 2025

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

In an exclusive interview, Rouse CEO Luke Minford, Arnold & Siedsma managing partner Steve Duxbury, and Wrays executive chairman Gary Cox discuss plans to build the world’s first ‘truly integrated’ global IP services business
Benjamin Grzimek, partner at Casalonga’s new Düsseldorf office, believes the firm is well-placed to challenge German UPC dominance
A lot of the reporting around the Anthropic settlement misses something critical: it isn’t that relevant to AI training, argues Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard
Justin Hill and Marie Jansson Heeks, part of an 18-strong team to have joined Crowell & Moring, explain why IP client advice must go beyond only being called upon for patent disclosure
To mark the EUIPO having processed five million EUTM and REUD applications, Managing IP speaks to the most prolific representatives to uncover how they stay at the top of their game
The merger marks Rouse’s second M&A deal within a month, and will provide access to Arnold & Siedsma’s UPC offering
Simon Tønners explains why IP provides the chance to work with some of the most passionate, risk-taking, and emotionally invested clients
The co-leaders of the firm’s new SEP practice group say the team will combine litigation and prosecution expertise to guide clients through cross-border challenges
Boasting four former Spruson & Ferguson leaders and with offices in Hong Kong and Singapore, the IP firm aims to provide fast, practical advice to clients
Partners at three law firms explain why trade secrets cases are rising, and how litigation is giving clients a market advantage
Gift this article