G 0001/24 (The description and any drawings are always referred to when interpreting the claims, and not just in the case of unclarity or ambiguity.) of 18.06.2025

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2025:G000124.20250618
Date of decision: 18 June 2025
Case number: G 0001/24
Petition for review of: -
Application number: 14806330.8
IPC class: A24F 47/00 A24D 1/00
Language of proceedings: English
Distribution: Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
Download: Decision in English
OJ versions: German
English
French
Other decisions for this case: -
Abstracts for this decision: Abstract on Article 069 EPC
Application title: HEATED AEROSOL GENERATING ARTICLE WITH THERMAL SPREADING WRAP
Applicant name: Philip Morris Products S.A.
Opponent name: Yunnan Tobacco International Co., Ltd.
Board: -
Headnote: The claims are the starting point and the basis for assessing the patentability of an invention under Articles 52 to 57 EPC. The description and drawings shall always be consulted to interpret the claims when assessing the patentability of an invention under Articles 52 to 57 EPC, and not only if the person skilled in the art finds a claim to be unclear or ambiguous when read in isolation.
Relevant legal provisions: Decision of the Unified Patent Court cited:EPC2000_Art_069_Protocol_Interpretation_Art_1European Patent Convention Art 52 European Patent Convention Art 53 European Patent Convention Art 54 European Patent Convention Art 55 European Patent Convention Art 56 European Patent Convention Art 57 European Patent Convention Art 69 European Patent Convention Art 69(1)European Patent Convention Art 84Order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (CoA UPC): NanoString Technologies -v- 10x Genomics, UPC CoA 335/2023, App 576355/2023 of 26 February 2024, as rectified by the order of 11 March 2024
Keywords: referral is admissible (yes)
diverging lines of case law (yes)
The description and any drawings are always referred to when interpreting the claims (yes)
Catchword: -
Cited cases: G 0005/83 G 0002/88 G 0006/88 G 0003/08 G 0002/12 T 1871/09 T 2684/17 T 1473/19
Citing cases: T 0439/22 T 0641/22 T 0697/22 T 1645/22 T 1867/22 T 2048/22 T 2063/22 T 2067/22 T 2116/22 T 2263/22 T 2357/22 T 2387/22 T 2552/22 T 0243/23 T 0311/23 T 0356/23 T 0367/23 T 0385/23 T 0400/23 T 0514/23 T 0618/23 T 0669/23 T 0695/23 T 0727/23 T 0744/23 T 0873/23 T 0933/23 T 0981/23 T 1052/23 T 1069/23 T 1071/23 T 1121/23 T 1164/23 T 1211/23 T 1226/23 T 1232/23 T 1302/23 T 1351/23 T 1465/23 T 1489/23 T 1503/23 T 1515/23 T 1555/23 T 1561/23 T 1571/23 T 1596/23 T 1620/23 T 1659/23 T 1775/23 T 1819/23 T 1820/23 T 1846/23 T 1849/23 T 1937/23 T 1963/23 T 1973/23 T 1993/23 T 1999/23 T 2000/23 T 2001/23 T 2027/23 T 2034/23 T 2047/23 T 0018/24 T 0040/24 T 0069/24 T 0072/24 T 0078/24 T 0161/24 T 0375/24 T 0384/24 T 0389/24 T 0405/24 T 0412/24 T 0456/24 T 0508/24 T 0566/24 T 0837/24 T 0866/24 T 0870/24 T 1205/24 T 1311/24 T 1402/24 T 0235/25

ORDER

The claims are the starting point and the basis for assessing the patentability of an invention under Articles 52 to 57 EPC. The description and drawings shall always be consulted to interpret the claims when assessing the patentability of an invention under Articles 52 to 57 EPC, and not only if the person skilled in the art finds a claim to be unclear or ambiguous when read in isolation.