Home » General Interest » New referral to EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal

New referral to EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal

Keltie LLP

K2 IP Limited

About IPcopy

IPcopy is an intellectual property related news site covering a wide variety of IP related news and issues. We will also take the odd lighthearted look at IP. Feel free to contact us via the details on the About Us page.

Disclaimer: Unless stated otherwise, the contributors to IPcopy (the "IPcopy writers") are patent and trade mark attorneys or patent and trade mark assistants at Keltie LLP or are network attorneys at K2 IP Limited. Guest contributors will be identified.

This news site is the personal site of the contributors and is not edited by the authors' employer in any way. From time to time however IPcopy may publish practice notes, legal updates and marketing news from Keltie LLP or K2 IP Limited. Any such posts will be clearly marked.

This news site is for information purposes only. Information posted to this news site is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you require IP related legal advice please contact your legal representative.

For the avoidance of doubt Keltie LLP and K2 IP Limited have no liability as to the content of IPcopy and any related tweets or social media posts.

Privacy Policy

IPcopy’s Privacy Policy can be viewed here.

epologoThe freedom for a patentee to amend claims during EPO opposition and opposition appeal proceedings is to be considered by the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA). In a referral to be issued shortly, the EBA will be asked if the clarity of a proposed amended claim should always be open for consideration even if the amendment simply consists of limiting the scope of a granted independent claim by incorporating the features of a granted subsidiary claim.

Historically such amendments have not been reviewed for compliance with clarity requirements of Article 84 EPC largely because the combination of independent and dependent features when read together is inherently present in the patent as granted.

Clarity in itself is not a ground of opposition in Europe, but it can be brought into proceedings when amendments that change the wording of the claims are submitted by the patent proprietor. Typically, the types of amendments that have been challenged for lack of clarity involve incorporating features from the description or redefining the claims by omitting or adding features not previously recited explicitly in the claims. However, a few isolated recent decisions of Technical Boards of Appeal have raised the possibility that any amendment should render the claim open to challenge for lack of clarity, even if the claims as granted already explicitly recited the combination of features, albeit in different claims.

The matter came to a head in the recent case T0373/12 where the opponent elected to request a stay of proceedings to seek clarity on the issue from the EBA, submitting the following question:

Does an amendment of an independent claim during opposition proceedings hinder the examination with regard to clarity (Art. 84 EPC), if a combination of an independent claim as granted with the elements of a dependent claim as granted? (Contrary to the decisions T 459/09 and T 409/10).”

This question will be considered by the Technical Board of Appeal and may be revised further before it is eventually submitted to the EBA.

At present it is unclear as to whether the Opposition and Technical Boards will seek to stay proceedings in all pending cases where the proprietor of the patent is proposing an amendment in order to await the outcome of the EBA decision. Given the fundamental nature of the question, if proceedings are stayed in all such instances then it can be expected that the backlog of cases currently under opposition is likely to skyrocket.

Keltie LLP attorneys represented the patent proprietor in this matter.


  1. Anonymous says:

    As the decision hasn’t been published yet, could you let us know the application number?

    • ipcopy says:

      The application number of the above case is 05851833.3. Keltie LLP was appointed as representative to the patent proprietor after the opposition was filed.

  2. Uba Babs says:

    I think the decision should be made public as soon as it is taken,and it should be in the right parspective in accordance with the law.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: