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

With the London Annual Meeting behind us, we look back at some of the lessons learned this week and ahead to what 2027 will bring
In-house counsel aren’t impressed with law firms’ international networks, but practitioners say they are crucial for business
Publication of the UPC’s annual report and adoption of the procedural rules of the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre were also among major developments
With the INTA Annual Meeting drawing to a close, we asked attendees for their top tips on how to close business after a meeting
Senior UK judges discussing the impact of AI on the judiciary, and the role of in-house IP lawyers during corporate transactions and carve-outs were among the top talking points
Tarun Khurana, founding partner of Khurana & Khurana, discusses juggling tasks, why every hour has a value, and the importance of ‘trusting the process’
Annual Meeting hears that IP firms are targeting hires with technical literacy in a fragmented landscape, and that those that build an online presence will distinguish themselves from the digital chaos
How law firms can secure themselves in a technology-driven IP landscape and how IP teams can develop future leadership were among the top talking points
The variety of winners demonstrates that the UPC is now a core benchmark rather than an experimental consideration, while junior lawyers are becoming more deeply involved in key work
The Indian government announcing a fee waiver for sports-related IP registrations, and the US adding the EU to its IP 'watch list' were also among major developments
Gift this article