EPO: Applicant is responsible for checking patent text
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The winners of the awards will be revealed at a gala dinner in New York City on April 25
Counsel debate the potential outcome of SCOTUS’s latest copyright case after justices questioned whether they should dismiss it
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career
The small Düsseldorf firm is making a big impact in the UPC. Founding partner Christof Augenstein explains why
The court criticised Oppo’s attempts to delay proceedings and imposed a penalty, adding that the Chinese company may need to pay more if the trial isn’t concluded this year
Miguel Hernandez explains how he secured victory for baby care company Naterra in his first oral argument before the Federal Circuit
The UPC judges are wrong – restricting access to court documents, and making parties appoint a lawyer only to have a chance of seeing them, is madness
The group, which includes the Volkswagen, Seat and Audi brands, is now licensed to use SEPs owned by more than 60 patent owners
Managing IP’s Max Walters appeared on the latest episode of ‘Two IPs in a pod’, a regular podcast hosted by the UK patent attorney body, to discuss AI, awards and more
Sources at law firms say they have spent more than three years waiting for IP regulations and explain how the delay is affecting their business
Gift this article