EPO board: no legal basis for adapting description text prior to grant

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 board: no legal basis for adapting description text prior to grant

Sponsored by

inspicos-400px recrop.jpg
Patent agreement.jpg

An EPO board of appeal decision has challenged the office’s standing in requiring applicants to adapt the description text of patent applications to be in accordance with amended claims, says Edward Farrington of Inspicos

For many years, the EPO has required applicants to align the description text of a patent application with amended claims before an application can proceed to grant (Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office, Part H, Chapter V, 2.7).

Applicants can be requested to delete examples or embodiments that are no longer within the scope of the claims, general statements, or "spirit of the invention" or claim-like clauses. EPO examiners typically relied on the second sentence of Article 84 of the European Patent Convention (EPC) as the legal basis for this requirement, which states “[the claims] shall be clear and concise and be supported by the description.”

However, in a newly published decision from an EPO board of appeal, T 56/21, the applicant (F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG) challenged the legal basis for the EPO’s requirements. During examination of the application, the EPO examiner required the claim-like clauses in the application text to be deleted. Hoffmann-La Roche refused, the application was rejected, and an appeal was filed.

The board in T 56/21 considered Article 84 and Article 69 of the EPC, and how the relationship between the patent claims and the description text is governed. Among other things, the board concluded that these articles of the EPC should be kept separate – the assessment of clarity of a patent application was a task for the EPO’s examining division, while the “protection conferred by a patent” is a matter for consideration by national courts in infringement proceedings. Furthermore, Article 84 of the EPC sets out requirements to be met by the claims and not by the description. Accordingly, if a claim lacked clarity, the board stated that this should be remedied by amending the claim itself, and not by considering the description text.

It is hoped that this decision, issued on October 4 2024, becomes established case law, and that the Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office are updated to reflect decision T 56/21. At least, the decision appears to provide justification for applicants who may not wish to align the description text with claims intended for grant.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Law firm Stephens Scown secured victory for its client in a dispute over two cider products
The Court of Appeal said the UPC can award damages based on a national court’s infringement ruling, giving the last laugh to the lawyer who filed the case
AI
Robert Guthrie at Osborne Clarke runs through the government’s AI and copyright consultation and considers the expected challenges
A lawyer firing Meta as a client has reinforced why the industry should not shy away from losing business from those with questionable ethical standards, even if it comes at a cost
A blow for Getty ahead of its AI showdown with Stability AI and a licensing deal between Nokia and Samsung were among the big talking points this week
The IP Federation has written to the UPC Court of Appeal’s presiding judge ahead of a crucial decision on whether in-house lawyers and attorneys can represent their employers in litigation
A Boies Schiller Flexner partner explains how he helped toy company Tangle prevail in a copyright case concerning a kinetic sculpture
Awards
Submit your nominations for this year's WIBL Americas Awards by February 28
Awards
Research for the annual Women in Business Law Awards has begun – submit your entries by February 28
Sources at four firms tell Managing IP whether COVID-induced policies such as remote working have helped save money and outline the effect on their practices
Gift this article