EPO: A golden standard

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Michael Gaertner explains why Locke Lord’s merger with Troutman Pepper sparked the need to seek a new home and why Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney ticked the right boxes
The appointment makes good on the firm’s promise to boost its UPC expertise
Mathilda Davidson, a transactional IP partner, joined the firm from Gowling WLG today, January 6
A significant SEP win for Huawei and a tobacco trademark victory for law firm Venable were among the big talking points this week
Emily O’Neill, BAT's new head of patents, considers why the first 90 days in a new role are crucial for establishing credibility and understanding your organisation’s culture and objectives
US attorneys weigh in on the rise of AI, fee increases, and other issues to watch in 2025
The team, led by partners Dominic Farnsworth and Leigh Smith, also includes two trademark attorneys
Demand for specialists is increasing as IP plays an ever-bigger role in deals and financial transactions
A UK government consultation on AI and copyright, a patent blow for Lenovo and a trademark row over cider were among the big talking points this week
Our most popular stories of the year included a rundown of the 50 most influential people in IP, our in-house ones to watch, and UPC news
Gift this article