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

Maria Peyman, head of IP at Birketts, explains why the firm is adopting a ‘seamless approach’ for clients by integrating two of its practice areas
Matthew Swinn, who leads the firm’s IP practice, discusses why Mallesons is well-placed to remain a major IP force
Lawyers at A&O Shearman analyse developments regarding UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction, including its scope and jurisdictional limits
Michelle Lee discusses reaching milestones at the USPTO, AI’s role in legal work, and how to empower women in tech and IP
Executive chair Matt Dixon, who reveals a new associate hire, says the firm wants to offer a realistic pathway to partnership while avoiding the ‘corporate machine’ route
Mayer Brown’s role in cardiovascular technology dispute reflects how firms are pursuing precedent-setting cases to try and guide AI and patent law
Kevin Mack, Via’s new president, emphasises the importance of collaborative licensing structures and shares how AI tools can help create new lines of business
A Tokyo District Court ruling concerning movie spoilers, and a second chance for VLSI against Intel were also among the top talking points
Practitioners believe new AI tools at the USPTO will not replace lawyers or disrupt revenue, but instead expose where a trademark attorney’s value lies
Leighton Cassidy Legal hopes to leverage its founder's international experience and provide clients with a rare chance to receive litigation and prosecution under one umbrella
Gift this article