EPO tightens up on strict European amendment practice
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

EPO tightens up on strict European amendment practice

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px.png
copyright protection of intellectual

Szonja Szenczi-Molnár of Inspicos explains why patent applicants should clearly explain the alternatives and possible combinations concerning claims when drafting description text, in light of a ruling on the allowability of amendments

Under existing EPO practice, an amendment that introduces subject matter that extends beyond the content of the application as filed is unallowable, if the change results in the skilled person being presented with information that is not directly and unambiguously derivable from the content of the application as filed.

A decision by an EPO technical board of appeal (T 1137/21) in June 2023 relates to the allowability of amendments. Claim 1 of the main request was based on claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 13, and 17 as originally filed. The appellant (the patent proprietor) argued that the examples fell under the wording of the claim and that claim 1 did not present the skilled person with new information.

The board of appeal disagreed.

Claim 1 was found to be the result of multiple selections of very specific combinations of features present in different dependent claims, made from among numerous possibilities, having varying degrees of preference. No passage of the original application disclosed the features of claim 1 in combination. While the examples fell under claim 1 of the main request, they were under the most preferred options of the various parameters and ranges, and thus were not sufficient as pointers to the specific selections of claim 1.

Claim 1 did not relate to converging alternatives (T 1621/16) either, due to the lack of pointers. Additionally, some amendments were found to be an arbitrary combination of end points.

Therefore, when drafting patent applications, it is recommended that the description text clearly explains the alternatives and their possible combinations, or at least contains pointers to allow the combination of the less-preferred embodiments, if relevant, in a clear and unambiguous manner.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

View the Social Impact EMEA Awards 2024 shortlist and join us on September 12 at The Waldorf Hotel in London
James Tumbridge talks about advising the government on AI and why his day could start with the police and end with legal networking
Data from Managing IP+’s Talent Tracker shows that the IP ambitions of Asian full-service firms and a life sciences focus in the US have prompted lateral moves
Michelle Lue-Reid has joined the IP business as its chief transformation officer and will look to implement major change initiatives across member firms
Chad Landmon, who joins in Washington DC, hopes to expand the firm’s Hatch-Waxman practice
The FRAND rate is only 5 cents higher than the per-device rate determined at first instance in 2023
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Nearly four months after joining Crowell & Moring, Edward Taelman reflects on starting afresh, new clients, and firm culture
Firms discuss the ebb and flow of life sciences IP work and explain how they help professionals pivot between specialities
Mercedes-Benz, Dolby Laboratories, and Panasonic discuss the merits and drawbacks of the USPTO's terminal disclaimer proposal
Gift this article