EPO: Applicant is responsible for checking patent text

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: Applicant is responsible for checking patent text

Pursuant to Rule 71(3) of the European Patent Convention (EPC), towards the termination of the examination proceedings, the Examining Division of the European Patent Office (EPO) shall inform the applicant of the text in which it intends to grant the European patent. Following Rule 71(5) EPC, if the applicant subsequently pays the grant and publishing fees and files the required translations of the claims, he shall be deemed to have approved the text intended for grant.

In examination proceedings pertaining to EP 2 396 848, in the communication under Rule 71(3) EPC, the Examining Division made reference to the claims submitted by the applicant in the list of documents intended for grant. However, the EPO had left out parts of the claims from the text intended for grant itself. The applicant apparently overlooked the flaw and proceeded by complying with the provisions of Rule 71 EPC, and the patent was subsequently granted in a form from which parts of the claims were missing.

Following the issue of the printed patent, the B1 publication, the applicant requested correction under either one of Rules 139 or 140 EPC, correction of a purported printing error, or that the decision to grant the patent be considered null and void. Neither the Examining Division nor the Board of Appeal allowed either of these requests. In its decision T 506/16, the Board of Appeal notes that:

  • Rule 140 EPC is not available for correcting patents in accordance with Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G 1/10.

  • Rule 139 EPC is only applicable to documents filed with the EPO, i.e. not to documents produced by the EPO.

  • The obligation to check the text in which the patent will be granted lies with the applicant.

  • The decision to grant did not infringe the principle of good faith and the protection of the legitimate expectations of the users of the EPO.

The applicant's attempt to reinstate the missing parts of the claims did not thus succeed, despite the fact that it was the EPO's Examining Division that included an incomplete set of claims in the text intended for grant.

farrington.jpg

Jakob Pade Frederiksen


Inspicos P/SKogle Allé 2DK-2970 HoersholmCopenhagen, DenmarkTel: +45 7070 2422Fax: +45 7070 2423info@inspicos.comwww.inspicos.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A decision on a licensing rate payable by Warner Bros and Paramount, and a survey outlining UK businesses’ lack of IP preparation ahead of launching abroad, were among other major talking points
A fresh wave of deals highlights why investors favour IP firms and why independent outfits may soon have to rethink their strategy
King & Spalding has now hired 15 partners from Winston Taylor and legacy firm Winston & Strawn in offices spanning Texas, San Francisco, and Chicago
Firm says its work with a biotech client could signal a sea change in how - and when - law firms enter the drug development process
Evan Lazerowitz, attorney in Robinson + Cole’s bankruptcy and reorganisation group, offers key takeaways for IP interested parties in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings
While the UK sees heavy IP rankings movement, Germany’s new tiered UPC table signals a shift from early adoption to market maturity
In an exclusive interview, Bernard Ledeboer reveals how a Consolid-backed group of firms wants to expand across Europe, invest in AI and centralise operations to compete at the top tier
Not all private equity firms are the same, so leaders at four externally backed IP firms came together to discuss the frameworks they followed and how they ensured a cultural fit
Top-tier German and Spanish firms are among the advisers on a Europe-wide copyright and licensing tussle concerning the design of the track circuit in Madrid
Partners Alex Wilson and Andreas Kramer say bigger law firm rivals don’t necessarily gain by having a wider jurisdictional reach
Gift this article