Europe: Restrictions on the right to amend patent claims
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

For the latest article in our regular series covering UPC developments, we summarise five rulings and highlight what’s expected later this month
John Keville, partner at Sheppard Mullin, explains how he secured a patent subject matter eligibility victory for his client against GoPro
An IP partner at Womble Bond Dickinson explains how its combination with Lewis Roca will create a fully-rounded litigation and prosecution service
Ronen Speyer of Evalueserve explains why in a competitive business landscape, IP has become a key driver in gaining a competitive advantage
Michael Sharp, who moved to Canadian firm Field Law from Aurora Cannabis in June, said he is enjoying cross-practice collaboration at his new firm
Yasemin Kenaroğlu tells us about setting up ‘IP School’, Turkish coffee, and why IP is like an iceberg
Irena Royzman, who joined Orrick earlier this year, explains how she's collaborated with her new colleagues to address IP policy concerns
Partners at Fenwick explain why they had to be aggressive when helping Lashify win a patent infringement trial
Big law firms are reorganising their IP departments in response to changing client needs and new legal challenges
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Gift this article