Europe: Restrictions on the right to amend patent claims

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

Europe: Restrictions on the right to amend patent claims

In its decision HIGH POINT SARL v KPN BV, the Dutch Supreme Court held that the right of the patentee to limit a European patent before the national courts, as defined by the European convention (EPC) article 137(3), may be restricted by national procedural conditions. Accordingly, the Dutch courts may refuse to consider limited claims that give rise to a new debate about patent validity after filing the grounds of appeal.

The extent of the right to limit the claims was a matter of interpretation of the EPC. The Supreme Court found that the plain text of article 137(3) EPC did not exclude imposing national procedural conditions on the right to limit the patent. The legislative history did not show an intention to harmonise procedural law in this respect. The legislator introduced article 137(3) EPC only because the right to limit the patent claims was not, or insufficiently, guaranteed in some of the contracting states. Furthermore, the court noted that use of procedural conditions was accepted in other states.

The Supreme Court upheld the criteria used by the court of appeal for denying the right to limit the patent. The court of appeal's reason for denying this right was that the limitation would give rise to a new debate about validity after filing the grounds of appeal. The court of appeal was allowed to find this based on the fact that the added limitation was not used for an elaboration or more accurate definition of an earlier argument, and that it introduced a wholly new element in the proceedings.

Lars de Haas


V.O.Carnegieplein 5, 2517 KJThe HagueThe NetherlandsTel: +31 70 416 67 11Fax: +31 70 416 67 99info@vo.euwww.vo.eu

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The combined entity, which is expected to offer IP services across Australia and New Zealand, will be called Jones Maxwell Smith & Davis
The Iconix v Dream Pairs dispute, to be heard at the UK Supreme Court, concerns trademarks owned by sports brand Umbro and the issue of post-sale confusion
The European IP team from Simmons & Simmons discusses the current approaches to IP enforcement against look-a-like or copycat products
Ten firms have each received more than 11 nominations, while more than 20 in-house counsel are up for awards
Yanfeng Xiong discusses 6am wake ups, honing his basketball skills, and how he prioritises tasks
Saina Shamilov explains how she convinced the Federal Circuit to upend the US ITC’s domestic industry analysis
Christopher Kinkade and Naira Simmons reveal the distributed firm’s hiring hopes for 2025, a little more than a year after it was founded
A CJEU copyright decision on employees' rights and an update on an IP feud concerning foreign rights over 'Superman' were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how firms advising PTAB petitioners may react to the USPTO’s decision to ditch Fintiv guidance
The recruits include another former Stobbs lawyer, as well as a chief technology officer and chief financial officer
Gift this article