Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A technical effect must still be evident in the original patent filing, the EBoA said in its G2/21 decision today, March 23
Brands should not be deterred from pursuing lookalike producers, and an unfair advantage claim could be the key, say Emma Teichmann and Geoff Steward at Stobbs
Justice Mellor’s highly anticipated ruling surprised SEP owners and reassured implementers that the UK may not be so hostile after all
The England and Wales High Court's judgment comes ahead of a separate hearing concerning one of the patents-in-suit at the EPO
While the rules allow foreign firms to open local offices and offer IP services, a ban on litigation and practising Indian law could mean little will change
A New York federal court heard oral arguments this week in a copyright case pitting publishing giants against a digital library
Commissioner Hamano Koichi shares his vision for the JPO and explains that IP offices must promote innovation that drives social change
The Asia-Pacific awards research cycle has now begun – don’t miss on this opportunity be recognised in 2023
The Supreme Court, which is hearing two IP cases this week, should limit the power of US courts to rule on foreign sales
Safety standards wouldn’t lose copyright protection when named in law, so long as they were accessible for free online