EPO tightens up on strict European amendment practice
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 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

Former Jenner & Block litigators say they plan to capitalise on a ‘huge uptick’ in life sciences work after joining Fish & Richardson’s newly formed life sciences industry team
Pravin Anand and Vaishali Mittal of Anand & Anand explain how they helped Swiss pharma company Vifor secure a landmark win against generic companies in India
Malisheia Douglas, who spent six years at Eaton Corporation, said she was attracted by the firm's global footprint
The European Parliament has voted in favour of overhauling the SEP framework, a proposal that has sparked deep division among patent owners and implementers
Daniel Poh talks about his journey to becoming managing partner and how firms can win new business from Chinese companies
Missing a deadline can have serious consequences but law firms should consider being lenient to those responsible
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
CMS, which was told to respond to a cancellation action by February 12 but filed its response a day later, has rowed back on claims about an IT error
The deal could help Rouse gain a foothold in Australia and New Zealand for the first time
With a team of more than 80 patent lawyers and attorneys across 21 European offices, the firm is acting in some of the most high-profile UPC cases
Gift this article