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

Brantsandpatents is seeking to boost its expertise across key IP services in the Benelux region
Shwetasree Majumder, managing partner of Fidus Law Chambers, discusses fighting gender bias and why her firm is building a strong AI and tech expertise
Hady Khawand, founder of AÏP Genius, discusses creating an AI-powered IP platform, and why, with the law evolving faster than ever, adaptability is key
UK firm Shakespeare Martineau, which secured victory for the Triton shower brand at the Court of Appeal, explains how it navigated a tricky test regarding patent claim scopes
The firm’s managing partner said the city is an ‘exciting hub of ideas and innovation’
In our latest podcast, Deborah Hampton talks through her hopes for the year, INTA’s patent focus, London 2026, and her love of music
Tech leads at three IP service groups discuss why firms need to move away from off-the-shelf AI products and adopt custom solutions
IP firms say they have been educating some clients on AI use, with ‘knowledge-sharing’ becoming more prevalent
As the US patent system tilts further toward favouring patent owners, firms with a strong patentee focus can get ahead of the game
Amanda Yang and Rachel Tan at Rouse and Landy Jiang at Lusheng Law Firm provide an overview of the draft amendments to China’s trademark law
Gift this article