E. Amendments
Overview
E. Amendments
1.Article 123(2) EPC – added subject-matter
2.Article 123(3) EPC – extension of the protection conferred
3.Relationship between Article 123(2) and Article 123(3) EPC
4.Correction of errors in the description, claims and drawings – Rule 139 EPC
This chapter concerns the allowability of amendments under Art. 123(2) and (3) EPC, as well as corrections of errors in the parts of a patent application or of a patent relating to the disclosure (the description, claims and drawings) under R. 139 EPC. Other aspects related to amendments are dealt with elsewhere; see for example chapters II.D.3.1.2 in the context of Art. 87(1) EPC; II.F. "Divisional applications", in particular II.F.2.2. "Amendments to divisional applications"; III.I.3.1. "Party's responsibility to define subject-matter by filing appropriate requests"; III.L. "Correction of errors in decisions"; IV.B.1.1., IV.B.2.6., IV.B.3.3., IV.B.3.4., IV.B.3.6., IV.B.3.7., IV.B.5. for the admissibility of amendments during the "Examination procedure"; IV.C.5. "Amendments in opposition proceedings"; V.A.4. "New submissions on appeal – case law on RPBA 2020" and V.A.5 "New submissions on appeal – case law on RPBA 2007".
- T 1558/21
Catchword:
1. Entspricht der Antrag, der der Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung zugrunde liegt, zum Zeitpunkt der Entscheidung nicht dem Willen einer Partei, so ist diese Partei beschwert und ihre Beschwerde gegen die Entscheidung zulässig (Punkt 1.1 der Entscheidungsgründe). 2. Die Kammer sieht es als erwiesen an, dass die Entscheidung der Einspruchsabteilung nicht auf der beabsichtigten Fassung des Hilfsantrags beruht, die in der mündlichen Verhandlung erörtert wurde. Im vorliegenden Fall hat die Einspruchsabteilung entweder über den falschen Antrag entschieden, der nicht dem Tenor der Entscheidung entspricht, oder aber über einen Antrag, zu dem die Parteien nicht gehört wurden. Beides stellt einen schwerwiegenden Verfahrensmangel dar, und daher ist die Entscheidung aufzuheben (Punkte 3.4 - 3.6 der Entscheidungsgründe). 3. Ein Fehler in einem während der mündlichen Verhandlung eingereichten Anspruchssatz, der Teil einer in der mündlichen Verhandlung verkündeten Entscheidung geworden ist, ist weder einer späteren Korrektur über Regel 140 EPÜ zugänglich, noch über Regel 139 EPÜ, sofern es ihm an der Offensichtlichkeit mangelt (Punkte 5.1 - 5.5 der Entscheidungsgründe).
- T 1099/21
Catchword:
Any unclarity that may arise from an ambiguity in an application as filed is to the detriment of a patent proprietor, who is ultimately responsible for the drafting of the application as filed and its claims. The fact that a feature in the application as filed is unclear cannot therefore justify or excuse the complete deletion of the unclear feature or its replacement by another feature if this results in an extension beyond the content of the application as filed. What prompted a patent proprietor to make a particular amendment to the claims cannot have any influence on the outcome of the assessment of the ground for opposition under Article 100(c) EPC (point 8 of the Reasons).
- T 88/21
Catchword:
In view of the principles of multiple priorities and partial priority: undisclosed disclaimer based on a disclosure in an earlier application by the same applicant not allowed.
- T 1473/19
Catchword:
1.) Article 69 EPC in conjunction with Article 1 of the Protocol thereto can and should be relied on when interpreting claims and determining the claimed subject-matter in proceedings before the EPO, including for the purpose of assessing compliance with Article 123(2) EPC (Reasons 3.1-3.15). 2.) Although Article 69(1), second sentence, EPC requires that generally account be taken of the description and the drawings when interpreting a claim, the primacy of the claims according to Article 69(1), first sentence, EPC limits the extent to which the meaning of a certain claim feature may be affected by the description and the drawings (Reasons 3.16-3.16.2). 3.) Claim interpretation is overall a question of law which must as such ultimately be answered by the deciding body, and not by linguistic or technical experts. It does, however, involve the appraisal of linguistic and technical facts which may be supported by evidence submitted by the parties (Reasons 3.17).
- J 3/21
Catchword:
1. Mere inconsistencies among the indications in the request for grant of a European patent (EPO Form 1001), and between some of them and the originally filed application documents, are not sufficient to prove an alleged obvious error or the obviousness of a correction offered under Rule 139 EPC.
2. The ban on corrections under Rule 139 EPC by replacement of at least the complete description is categorical.
- Annual report: case law 2022
- Summaries of decisions in the language of the proceedings