T 0873/24 (TITANIUM-TO-NITROGEN RATIO/ArcelorMittal) of 03.02.2026

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2026:T087324.20260203
Date of decision: 3 February 2026
Case number: T 0873/24
Online on: 3 June 2026
Petition for review of: -
Application number: 19185736.6
IPC class: C21D 9/46 B32B 15/00
Language of proceedings: English
Distribution: Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
Download: Decision in English
OJ versions: No OJ links found
Other decisions for this case: -
Abstracts for this decision: -
Application title: COATED STEEL STRIPS, METHOD OF MAKING THE SAME, STAMPED PRODUCTS PREPARED FROM THE SAME AND ARTICLES OF MANUFACTURE WHICH CONTAIN SUCH A STAMPED PRODUCT
Applicant name: ArcelorMittal
Opponent name: POSCO
Board: 3.3.05
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions: European Patent Convention Art 123(2)European Patent Convention Art 112(1)
Keywords: Amendments
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - by the board of appeal
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - uniform application of law
Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal - point of law of fundamental importance
Catchword: Questions referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
1. May a decision be considered to be "required" for the purposes of Article 112(1) EPC, if the referring Board demonstrates that the point of law in question arises out of the context of the case pending before it and, in the circumstances of the proceedings, it is reasonable for the Board to examine it and decide on it next?
2.(a) Does the fact that the claims are the starting point and the basis for assessing the patentability of an invention generally preclude a feature which is only disclosed in the description or the drawings of a patent from being read into the meaning of a granted claim, in particular if this leads to a restrictive reading of terms used in the claim?
2.(b) If the answer to question 2.(a) is no: is claim interpretation the result of both reading the claims and consulting the description and drawings as a unitary process and does the claim being the starting point and the basis for assessing the patentability rule out only those interpretations which can be derived from the patent as a whole but would clearly contradict the general technical understanding of the terms used in the claim?
3.(a) When assessing compliance with Article 123(2) EPC, must a term used in a claim be assessed against all interpretations that make technical sense to the skilled reader on the basis of the claim alone?
3.(b) If the answer to question 3.(a) is no: is it sufficient that only the interpretations of the subject-matter of the claim established against the background of the patent specification as a whole are directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed?
Cited cases: G 0003/98 G 0001/03 G 0002/03 G 0002/07 G 0002/10 G 0001/15 G 0001/24 T 0390/90 T 1239/03 T 0116/18 T 1473/19 T 0367/20 T 0439/22 T 2048/22 T 2067/22 T 0618/23 T 0727/23 T 0873/23 T 0981/23 T 1052/23 T 1071/23 T 1164/23 T 1973/23 T 2001/23 T 2047/23 T 0072/24 T 0405/24 T 0412/24 T 0837/24 T 0235/25
Citing cases: T 0094/23

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The following questions are referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal for decision:

1. May a decision be considered to be "required" for the purposes of Article 112(1) EPC, if the referring Board demonstrates that the point of law in question arises out of the context of the case pending before it and, in the circumstances of the proceedings, it is reasonable for the Board to examine it and decide on it next?

2.(a) Does the fact that the claims are the starting point and the basis for assessing the patentability of an invention generally preclude a feature which is only disclosed in the description or the drawings of a patent from being read into the meaning of a granted claim, in particular if this leads to a restrictive reading of terms used in the claim?

2.(b) If the answer to question 2.(a) is no: is claim interpretation the result of both reading the claims and consulting the description and drawings as a unitary process and does the claim being the starting point and the basis for assessing the patentability rule out only those interpretations which can be derived from the patent as a whole but would clearly contradict the general technical understanding of the terms used in the claim?

3.(a) When assessing compliance with Article 123(2) EPC, must a term used in a claim be assessed against all interpretations that make technical sense to the skilled reader on the basis of the claim alone?

3.(b) If the answer to question 3.(a) is no: is it sufficient that only the interpretations of the subject-matter of the claim established against the background of the patent specification as a whole are directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed?