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

Tim Gilman, who joined Kasowitz alongside three other partners, says he is excited to be part of the firm’s ‘elite’ litigation team
A backlash against a White House video promoting deportation and Casalonga opening a new office in Düsseldorf were also among the top talking points
The firm has brought on board two counsel and an associate to complement two previously revealed partner hires
Bradford Newman, who has joined the firm’s new Silicon Valley office as head of complex technology disputes, discusses plans to build the practice group and attract local talent
Managing IP summarises the highlights from the IP STARS rankings for copyright and IP transactions work, the final firm rankings release of the year
Developments included the first judgment from the Nordic Baltic division, an injunction covering the UK, and a new code of conduct
Alston & Bird acted for InterDigital, while Samsung was represented by Fish & Richardson, during the arbitration process
Powell Gilbert lawyers reveal how they navigated parallel EPO proceedings and collaborated with European peers to come out on top in the Nordic-Baltic Division’s first judgment
The firms posted increases in revenue and profit per equity partner, with both giving a nod to their IP expertise
EasyGroup, the owner of the easyJet airline, said in a press release that UK-based first-instance judges are “less experienced”, bringing a long-running debate back to the fore
Gift this article