EPO: A golden standard

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: A golden standard

It is well known that the EPO generally applies a rather strict approach when examining whether or not amendments made after filing extend beyond the contents of the application as filed. One frequently occurring type of claim amendment is the replacement or removal of a feature from a claim. According to a landmark decision, T 331/87 of 1989, the replacement or removal of a feature may not violate the provision governing added subject-matter (article 123(2) EPC) if the skilled person would directly and unambiguously recognise that:

  • the feature was not explained as essential in the application as filed;

  • the feature is not indispensable for the function of the invention; or

  • the replacement or removal requires no real modification of other features to compensate for the change.

The above, so-called essentiality test developed in T 331/87 and cited in the EPO's Guidelines for Examination, has however been challenged in a number of recent decisions. Most recently, in decision T 1852/13 of January 31 2017 (issued on March 31 2017) one of the EPO's technical appeal boards provides a detailed and substantiated criticism of the essentiality test. According to the board, the "gold standard" for assessment of added matter applies; according to this standard, an amendment does not add matter beyond the contents of the application as filed if the skilled person at the filing date, applying his common general knowledge, would directly and unambiguously derive the amendment from the application as filed. In decision T 1852/13 the deciding board expresses the view that the essentiality test is neither compatible with the gold standard nor with the requirements for entitlement to priority laid down by the Enlarged Board of Appeal in decision G 2/98. The board having decided T 1852/13 even goes as far as to express that "the essentiality test is no longer to be applied".

The legal trend reinforced by decision T 1852/13 certainly does not make life easier for applicants desiring to remove or replace features from claims.

frederiksen.jpg

Jakob Pade Frederiksen

Inspicos P/S

Kogle Allé 2

DK-2970 Hoersholm

Copenhagen, Denmark

Tel: +45 7070 2422

Fax: +45 7070 2423

info@inspicos.com

www.inspicos.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Lawyers at Lavoix provide an overview of the UPC’s approach to inventive step and whether the forum is promoting its own approach rather than following the EPO
Andrew Blattman, who helped IPH gain significant ground in Asia and Canada, will leave in the second half of 2026
The court ordering a complainant to rank its arguments in order of potential success and a win for Edwards Lifesciences were among the top developments in recent weeks
Frederick Lee has rejoined Boies Schiller Flexner, bolstering the firm’s capabilities across AI, media, and entertainment
Nirav Desai and Sasha S Rao at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox explore how companies’ efforts to manage tariffs by altering corporate structures can undermine their ability to assert their patents and recover damages
Monika Żuraw, founder of Żuraw & Partners, discusses why IP should be part of the foundation of a business, and taking on projects that others walk away from
Lawyers say attention will turn to the UK government’s AI consultation after judgment fails to match pre-trial hype
Susan Keston and Rachel Fetches at HGF explain why the CoA’s decision to grant the UPC’s first permanent injunction demonstrates the court’s readiness to diverge from national court judgments
IP, M&A, life sciences and competition partners advised on deal that brings together brands such as ‘Huggies’ and ‘Kleenex’ with ‘Band-Aid’ and ‘Tylenol’
Stability AI, represented by Bird & Bird, is not liable for secondary copyright infringement, though Fieldfisher client Getty succeeds in some trademark claims
Gift this article