EPO board: no legal basis for adapting description text prior to grant

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 board: no legal basis for adapting description text prior to grant

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px recrop.jpg
Patent agreement.jpg

An EPO board of appeal decision has challenged the office’s standing in requiring applicants to adapt the description text of patent applications to be in accordance with amended claims, says Edward Farrington of Inspicos

For many years, the EPO has required applicants to align the description text of a patent application with amended claims before an application can proceed to grant (Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office, Part H, Chapter V, 2.7).

Applicants can be requested to delete examples or embodiments that are no longer within the scope of the claims, general statements, or "spirit of the invention" or claim-like clauses. EPO examiners typically relied on the second sentence of Article 84 of the European Patent Convention (EPC) as the legal basis for this requirement, which states “[the claims] shall be clear and concise and be supported by the description.”

However, in a newly published decision from an EPO board of appeal, T 56/21, the applicant (F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG) challenged the legal basis for the EPO’s requirements. During examination of the application, the EPO examiner required the claim-like clauses in the application text to be deleted. Hoffmann-La Roche refused, the application was rejected, and an appeal was filed.

The board in T 56/21 considered Article 84 and Article 69 of the EPC, and how the relationship between the patent claims and the description text is governed. Among other things, the board concluded that these articles of the EPC should be kept separate – the assessment of clarity of a patent application was a task for the EPO’s examining division, while the “protection conferred by a patent” is a matter for consideration by national courts in infringement proceedings. Furthermore, Article 84 of the EPC sets out requirements to be met by the claims and not by the description. Accordingly, if a claim lacked clarity, the board stated that this should be remedied by amending the claim itself, and not by considering the description text.

It is hoped that this decision, issued on October 4 2024, becomes established case law, and that the Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office are updated to reflect decision T 56/21. At least, the decision appears to provide justification for applicants who may not wish to align the description text with claims intended for grant.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

View the official winners of the 2025 Social Impact EMEA Awards
King & Wood Mallesons will break into two entities, 14 years after a merger between a Chinese and an Australian firm created the combined outfit
Teams from Shakespeare Martineau and DWF will take centre stage in a dispute concerning the registrability of dairy terminology in plant-based products
Senem Kayahan, attorney and founder at PatentSe, discusses how she divides prosecution tasks, and reveals the importance of empathetic client advice
The association’s Australian group has filed a formal complaint against the choice of venue, citing Dubai as an unsafe environment for the LGBTQIA+ community
Firm says appointment of Nick McDonald will boost its expertise in cross-border disputes, including at the Unified Patent Court
In the final episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss the IP Inclusive Charter and the senior leaders’ pledge
Law firms are integrating AI to remain competitive, and some are noticing an impact on traditional training and billing models
IP partners are among those advising on Netflix's planned $82.7bn acquisition of Warner, which has been rivalled by a $108.4bn bid by Paramount
Sheppard Mullin’s Jennifer Ayers reviews modifications to the rules of practice for IPR petitions and considers what practitioners need to know
Gift this article