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

An order from a US judge is the latest example of counsel being required to disclose AI use – and shows why it’s important to stay on top of AI trends
Brigitte Spiegeler discusses her love of litigation, and why her day always starts by the sea
Ralph Schroeder, President of RightHub, North America, outlines why businesses must rethink their IP models to align with modern technology
Kirkland partners explain how they came to advise Thomson Reuters in its successful copyright suit against ROSS Intelligence
The winners of the awards will be revealed at a gala dinner in New York City
Counsel at four US firms explain the semiconductor work they’ve been involved in and how AI is affecting the industry
Lenovo, advised by Kirkland & Ellis, is entitled to an interim licence in its dispute with Ericsson
A copyright campaign against tech companies, an INTA resolution on deepfakes, and a designs survey by the UKIPO were also among the top talking points
The court, which has handed down one of the highest ever IP damages awards in India, held Amazon liable for infringing the 'Beverly Hills Polo Club' trademark
In BSH v Electrolux, the CJEU said that courts can rule on patent infringement in other member states even where validity is raised as a defence
Gift this article