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

OpenAI’s claims that China’s DeepSeek violated its proprietary technology should prompt the US company to rethink its past actions
OpenAI’s accusation against Chinese AI tool DeepSeek and a significant licensing deal for Nokia were among the top talking points this week
Counsel weigh in on how firms should be thinking about surveys in wake of closely followed trademark ruling
Melissa Harwood, who joined this week, said she was impressed by the firm's Seattle presence and is anticipating a busy schedule
Exclusive data and analysis show why counsel in some regions may demand stronger DEI compliance from law firms than their peers elsewhere
Amazon’s bid to restrict access to documents, a ruling on the UPC’s reach, and a case that could bar in-house lawyers were among the top stories
Fish & Richardson’s CEO explains why opening a Chicago office was a natural step and outlines his hopes for attracting new talent
Thomas Chartres-Moore, partner at Stephens Scown, explains how he combined the skills of his IP team with the firm's commercial team to defeat Aldi
The firm says the agreement will help provide ‘world-class’ legal services that are practical and innovative
Vijayalakshmy Malkani worked as a brand protection counsel for 20 years before taking on her new role at Sun Pharma
Gift this article