EPO requirements for description amendments challenged
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
Sponsored content

EPO requirements for description amendments challenged

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px.png
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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Managing IP’s senior reporter Rani Mehta interviewed attendees at the INTA Annual Meeting in Atlanta about how they made the most out of their first day
A team of lawyers who joined Norton Rose Fulbright from Polsinelli say they were drawn to the firm's global platform
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Lawyers say a ruling concerning liability for trademark infringement could give company directors an easy way out and create litigation uncertainty
The LMG Life Sciences Awards announces the winners for the 5th annual awards
Some US lawyers have strengthened their connections with European firms as they help clients determine whether the UPC will become a 'centre of gravity'
In the latest episode, the team discusses the battle to take control of listed company and IP business Qantm IP, and looks at some recent hiring trends
To mark Mental Health Awareness Week, lawyers explain how they manage their mental health, and how they pluck up the courage to ask themselves difficult questions
IP lawyers unpick a case heard at the CJEU’s Grand Chamber this week that could potentially create a new world for litigation in Europe
A lawyer who replied to a cease-and-desist letter with just two words has shown others how to deal with vexatious infringement allegations
Gift this article