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

Cookies Settings

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

A former scientist, inventor and now a patent practice leader, Hanane Fathi Roswall shares her views on leadership, diversity, the rise of AI and the promise of the UPC
With rumours that a third IP judge could yet join the England and Wales High Court, we run through some potential names while practitioners outline the importance of a well-stocked bench
Speaking to Managing IP at Via’s Bridge Summit in San Francisco, president Kevin Mack explains why the AI infrastructure boom is forcing a rethink of traditional SEP licensing and FRAND models
Law firms continue to sell clients on international footprints, but sprawling office networks count for little if financial structures discourage internal collaboration
Via's Qi pool expands its footprint in Asia with the addition of Chinese smartphone giant and Japanese auto company
Matthew Cassie becomes the tenth partner to join the firm’s London outpost, and the second since it opened its new headquarters in May this year
A&O Shearman and Fish & Richardson invested in German talent, meanwhile, major firms have assembled for an on the merits case pitting KeeeX against OpenAI and Adobe
Julia Bishop is director of IP at Twilio in the US
Hellberg is an IP director at Essity in Sweden
Palińska is the business & IP law lead at CD Projekt Red in Poland
Gift this article