EPO: Applicant is responsible for checking patent text

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: Applicant is responsible for checking patent text

Pursuant to Rule 71(3) of the European Patent Convention (EPC), towards the termination of the examination proceedings, the Examining Division of the European Patent Office (EPO) shall inform the applicant of the text in which it intends to grant the European patent. Following Rule 71(5) EPC, if the applicant subsequently pays the grant and publishing fees and files the required translations of the claims, he shall be deemed to have approved the text intended for grant.

In examination proceedings pertaining to EP 2 396 848, in the communication under Rule 71(3) EPC, the Examining Division made reference to the claims submitted by the applicant in the list of documents intended for grant. However, the EPO had left out parts of the claims from the text intended for grant itself. The applicant apparently overlooked the flaw and proceeded by complying with the provisions of Rule 71 EPC, and the patent was subsequently granted in a form from which parts of the claims were missing.

Following the issue of the printed patent, the B1 publication, the applicant requested correction under either one of Rules 139 or 140 EPC, correction of a purported printing error, or that the decision to grant the patent be considered null and void. Neither the Examining Division nor the Board of Appeal allowed either of these requests. In its decision T 506/16, the Board of Appeal notes that:

  • Rule 140 EPC is not available for correcting patents in accordance with Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G 1/10.

  • Rule 139 EPC is only applicable to documents filed with the EPO, i.e. not to documents produced by the EPO.

  • The obligation to check the text in which the patent will be granted lies with the applicant.

  • The decision to grant did not infringe the principle of good faith and the protection of the legitimate expectations of the users of the EPO.

The applicant's attempt to reinstate the missing parts of the claims did not thus succeed, despite the fact that it was the EPO's Examining Division that included an incomplete set of claims in the text intended for grant.

farrington.jpg

Jakob Pade Frederiksen


Inspicos P/SKogle Allé 2DK-2970 HoersholmCopenhagen, DenmarkTel: +45 7070 2422Fax: +45 7070 2423info@inspicos.comwww.inspicos.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

US corporates are using the UPC, but much of that work still flows to European boutiques. Last week’s merger, as well as others, could alter that dynamic
Publicly listed Australian group IPH delivered on its promise to profoundly shake up the Canadian market. Four years on, rivals have had time to adapt
IP practitioners debate whether new guidelines will make it more difficult to challenge a patent
Varuni Paranavitane says she is excited to bring ‘rounded expertise’ to the firm, which will have a solicitor in its ranks for the first time
Lawyers adapting to AI-driven recommendations are being pushed to demonstrate expertise publicly rather than simply relying on a polished website
Mid-market businesses looking to establish an online presence need ‘holistic’ brand protection services at an accessible cost, according to partners
Our latest update also includes the latest case filing statistics, and an update on how a transatlantic merger could be a UPC opportunity for the US half of the partnership
New partners, from biotech company Leyden Labs and Novartis, take the total number of partner hires to 12 since the firm took on external investment in late 2024
Labelled the ‘largest law firm merger in history’, the new outfit could also spell an opportunity for US clients to capitalise on Hogan Lovells' UPC expertise
Andy Lee and Amy Brooks of Brandsmiths explain how the firm secured a win for Peppa Pig over rival children’s character Wolfoo, in a case that centred on copied audio clips
Gift this article