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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Daniel Tarr explains why returning to his former firm could help him establish his personal brand, and predicts what’s on the horizon for AI litigation
A call to reinstate the European Commission's controversial SEP proposal and a trademark row involving Stanley cups were also among the top talking points
Susman Godfrey and Polsinelli secured victory for power systems manufacturer Vicor at the US International Trade Commission
Longi’s actions against JinkoSolar are the latest in a growing number of patent infringement disputes involving solar technology
Former solo practitioner Merlyne Jean-Louis explains why she moved to the newly formed Pierson Ferdinand, which operates as a virtual firm
With the India IP office headquarters moving from Mumbai to Delhi, forum shoppers and firms in the capital could benefit
David Stone, a highly influential figure at legacy firm Allen & Overy, has joined White & Case in what is a major move early in 2025
While business has been tough, foreign law firms with IP practices that have decided to stay put in China reveal why they are optimistic
Managing IP will host a ceremony in London on April 10 to reveal the winners of the EMEA Awards 2025
The Intellectual Property Judges' Association wrote to the European Commission just days before the proposals were shelved, it can be revealed
Gift this article