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 2026

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

Firms with established sports relationships and specialised expertise are well positioned to capture the market’s expanded pool of IP work
Gunjan Paharia discusses developing RIA, an AI platform built to draw on decades of institutional knowledge, support junior lawyers, and reshape how legal teams work
A strong Canadian business helped lift profits, but the IP service group's latest results underline the pressure facing its operations in Australia, New Zealand and parts of Asia
Wins in court have been key to the six-year-old firm’s growth, as one of its founders explains
The firm’s co-CEO discusses patent litigation, collaboration with overseas colleagues and the next generation of leaders
Two recent decisions demonstrate the courts’ creativity in cutting-edge IP disputes that tested their jurisdictional powers
Aditi Verma Thakur, managing partner at Aishani Partners, discusses 5 am wake-ups, working with high-performing professionals and staying calm under pressure
After more than three decades at Wilson Sonsini, Ian Edvalson explains why he moved to expand his life sciences transactional practice
While individual lateral hires and full-scale mergers remain popular options to scale a firm’s IP practice, recent activity indicates that a third option is proving successful
Lead King & Spalding trial lawyer says that while this is the first IP litigation defence victory for DoorDash, it certainly won’t be the last
Gift this article