The
European Patent Office (EPO) has released a 2014 edition of its Guidelines for Examination. Although the Guidelines are not legally binding, they are the
official text on proper application of the European Patent Convention (EPC) and
its Implementing Regulations. This latest edition of the Guidelines took effect
on 1 November 2014.
Some of the
most important amendments to the Guidelines are, as might be expected,
reflections of the latest changes to the Rules regulating time limits for
submitting new divisional applications and the availability of additional
searches for international applications facing objections on grounds of lack of
unity of invention.
Other
changes address the admissibility of claims relating to second or further
medical uses of known pharmaceutical products, the relationship between method
claims and the rule of one claim per category, as well as revision of the
principles concerning multiple applications referring to the same invention by
the same applicant.
However,
what appears to be the most significant change refers to the question of added
subject matter. Pursuant to Article 123 (2) EPC, a European patent application
or European patent may not be amended such that it contains subject matter
extending beyond the content of the application as filed.
Under the
EPO's current interpretation, the effect of this provision is for amendments to
be deemed admissible only when their wording can be directly and unambiguously
derived from the subject matter of the application as filed. The Board of
Appeal has sought to maintain that this should not be taken to mean that
literal support for the amendment in the original application is required, yet
even so objections that amendments submitted by applicants add subject matter
simply because they lack a strictly literal – that is, word for word – basis in
the application as initially filed are not unusual.
The new
paragraph included as H-IV 2.3 of the Guidelines states as follows:
“When assessing the conformity of the amended claims to the requirements of Art. 123(2), the focus should be placed on what is really disclosed to the skilled person by the documents as filed as directed to a technical audience. In particular, the examiner should avoid disproportionally focusing on the structure of the claims as filed to the detriment of the subject-matter that the skilled person would directly and unambiguously derive from the application as a whole.”
Accordingly,
this new paragraph may be taken to indicate that the subject matter no longer
corresponds strictly to the literal wording used in the application but more
freely to what a person skilled in the art understands by those words viewed as
a whole. However, though many are hoping that this signifies an end to
objections based on the absence of literal support for amendments, the fact is
that the paragraph in question does not appear to say anything truly new.
The
Guidelines have also added in paragraph H-III 2.1 that the requirement to
identify the amendments and indicate their basis "should be understood as
an opportunity for the applicant to provide convincing arguments ... as to why
the amendment(s) is/are directly and unambiguously derivable from the
application as filed. [These arguments] ... are particularly important ... where
literal support for the amendment(s) is not present in the application as
filed."
This
paragraph thus appears to underscore the need to provide detailed arguments
with a view to justifying amendments lacking literal support and that, by
extension, such amendments would be acceptable.
It remains to be seen whether this update to the
Guidelines will actually bring about a change in EPO examiners' interpretation
of Art. 123 (2)EPC in practice or whether it will simply turn out to add some
nuance to the Office’s current approach, which appears more likely, given that
amendments do require literal support in the application as initially filed.
Author: Ruth Sánchez
google 2656
ReplyDeletegoogle 2657
google 2658
google 2659
google 2660
google 2661
I'm grateful that you took the time to write this. To write your post, you must have done a tonne of research and data extraction. The instructive facts and examples are quite helpful. Keep up the wonderful work! I'm hoping to read more fascinating anecdotes from your perspective in the future. I appreciate your contribution very much.
ReplyDeleteanulación vs divorcio nueva jersey
Thank you for your excellent blog.Abogados Criminal en el Condado de Prince William
ReplyDeleteI just read your blog and want to thank you for the detailed update! The revised guidelines of EPO’s on amendments under the article 123(2) Epc are intriguing. This shift to consider a skilled person's understanding rather than strict literal support offers some flexibility. For those in patent law or seeking dissertation help on IP topics, these nuances are invaluable. Looking forward to seeing how it plays out in practice!
ReplyDeleteThe recent revisions to the European Patent Office's Guidelines for Examination could have significant implications for patent applicants and their strategies. Understanding these changes is crucial for ensuring compliance and maximizing patent protection. For those seeking assistance, there’s help on assignments related to navigating these guidelines effectively.
ReplyDeleteThis revision will surely enhance clarity and efficiency in the patent process, benefiting innovators across Europe.A great step ||New York Marriage Laws Divorce||New York No-Fault State Divorce forward for protecting ideas and encouraging innovation in all industries!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIn New Jersey, careless driving is when someone drives a car carelessly, putting other people or property in danger. According to N.J.S.A. 39:4-97, it is a traffic infraction that usually carries fines and points.
Careless Driving New Jersey