EPO requirements for description amendments challenged

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

EPO requirements for description amendments challenged

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px recrop.jpg
copenhagen-1721511.jpg

The European Patent Office (EPO)’s requirement for the description of a patent to confirm the claims at the final stage of grant or opposition proceedings is coming under attack, as Jakob Pade Frederiksen of Inspicos explains

A peculiarity of EPO practice is that the description is usually required to be brought into conformity with the claims at the final stage of grant or opposition proceedings.

According to the EPO Guidelines, part F-IV 4.3: “Any inconsistency between the description and the claims must be avoided if it could throw doubt on the subject-matter for which protection is sought.”

If the description includes embodiments not covered by the scope of the claims, amendment of the description is required by deleting those embodiments or marking them as not falling within the scope of the claims.

The Guidelines refer to Article 84 EPC, which stipulates that the claims shall be clear and concise and be supported by the description, as the legal basis for the requirement.

Rules 42(1)(c) and 48(1)(c) EPC have in some contexts been cited as a legal basis for requirements for description amendments; according to these provisions the description shall disclose the invention as claimed in such terms that the technical problem and its solution can be understood, and the description shall not contain any statement or other matter obviously irrelevant or unnecessary.

In two recent decisions, two chemical Boards of Appeal of the EPO have questioned to what extent a sound legal basis exists for these description requirements.

Recent decisions raise doubts

In T 1989/18 of 21 December 2021, it was held that, if the claims are clear in themselves and supported by the description, their clarity is not affected if the description contains subject-matter that is not claimed.

A subsequent decision, T 1444/20 of 28 April 2022, held that there is no requirement for the applicant to delete claim-like clauses or redundant subject-matter from the claims.

However, a number of other recent decisions, including decisions T 121/20, T 1024/18, T 2766/17 and T 2293/18 (all of which have emerged from non-chemical cases), maintain that adaptation of the description to the claims is a requirement under the provisions of the EPC.

Many patent practitioners hope that the current seemingly contradictory lines of case law will eventually provide a basis for an Enlarged Board of Appeal referral that could make a clean sweep.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article