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

IP specialists Jonathan Moss and Jessie Bowhill, who worked on cases concerning bitcoin, Ed Sheeran, and the Getty v Stability AI dispute, received the KC nod
Hannah Brown, an active AIPPI member, argues that DEI commitments must be backed up with actions, not just words
A ruling in the Kodak v Fujifilm dispute and a win for Google were among the major recent developments
Nick Aries and Elizabeth Louca at Bird & Bird unpick the legal questions raised by a very public social media spat concerning the ‘Brooklyn Beckham’ trademark
Michael Conway, who joined Birketts after nearly two decades at an IP boutique, says he was intrigued by the challenge of joining a general practice firm
The private-equity-backed firm said hires from DLA Piper and Eversheds Sutherland will help it become the IP partner of choice for innovative businesses
The acquisition is expected to help Clorox bolster its position in the health and hygiene consumer products market
AIPPI, which has faced boycott threats over the 2027 World Congress, says it has a long-standing commitment to engagement and geographic rotation
The shortlist for our annual Americas Awards will be published next month, with potential winners in more than 90 categories set to be revealed
News of Nokia signing a licensing deal with a Chinese automaker and Linklaters appointing a new head of tech and IP were also among the top talking points
Gift this article