Europe: Restrictions on the right to amend patent claims

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

Europe: Restrictions on the right to amend patent claims

In its decision HIGH POINT SARL v KPN BV, the Dutch Supreme Court held that the right of the patentee to limit a European patent before the national courts, as defined by the European convention (EPC) article 137(3), may be restricted by national procedural conditions. Accordingly, the Dutch courts may refuse to consider limited claims that give rise to a new debate about patent validity after filing the grounds of appeal.

The extent of the right to limit the claims was a matter of interpretation of the EPC. The Supreme Court found that the plain text of article 137(3) EPC did not exclude imposing national procedural conditions on the right to limit the patent. The legislative history did not show an intention to harmonise procedural law in this respect. The legislator introduced article 137(3) EPC only because the right to limit the patent claims was not, or insufficiently, guaranteed in some of the contracting states. Furthermore, the court noted that use of procedural conditions was accepted in other states.

The Supreme Court upheld the criteria used by the court of appeal for denying the right to limit the patent. The court of appeal's reason for denying this right was that the limitation would give rise to a new debate about validity after filing the grounds of appeal. The court of appeal was allowed to find this based on the fact that the added limitation was not used for an elaboration or more accurate definition of an earlier argument, and that it introduced a wholly new element in the proceedings.

Lars de Haas


V.O.Carnegieplein 5, 2517 KJThe HagueThe NetherlandsTel: +31 70 416 67 11Fax: +31 70 416 67 99info@vo.euwww.vo.eu

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A new claim filed by Ericsson, and a request for access to documents, were also among recent developments
Cooley and Stikeman Elliott advised 35Pharma on the deal, which will allow GSK to get its hands on S235, an investigational medicine for pulmonary hypertension
Simon Wright explains why the UK should embrace the possibility of rejoining the UPC, and reveals how CIPA is reacting to this month’s historic Emotional Perception AI case at the UK Supreme Court
Matthew Grady of Wolf Greenfield says AI presents an opportunity in patent practice for stronger collaboration between in-house and outside counsel
Aparna Watal, head of trademarks at Halfords IP, discusses why lawyers must take a stand when advising clients and how she balances work, motherhood and mentoring
Discussion hosted by Bird & Bird partners also hears that UK courts’ desire to determine FRAND rates could see the jurisdiction penalised in a similar way to China
The platform’s proactive intellectual property enforcement helps brands spot and kill fakes, so they can focus on growth. Managing IP learns more about the programme
Hire of José María del Valle Escalante to lead the firm’s operations in ‘dynamic’ Catalonia and Aragon regions follows last month’s appointment of a new chief information officer
The London elite have dominated IP litigation wins for the past 10 years, but a recent bombshell AI case could change all that
Two New Hampshire IP boutiques will soon merge to form Secant IP, seeking to scale patent strength while keeping a lean cost model
Gift this article