Claims under the European Patent Convention

Last updated

Article 84 of the European Patent Convention (EPC) [1] specifies that the "matter" for which patent protection is sought in an application - the purported invention - shall be stated ("defined") in the claims. This legal provision also requires that the claims must be clear and concise, and supported by the description. [1] The function, form and content of the claims are defined by Article 84 supplemented by Rule 43 EPC. [notes 1] [2]

Contents

The wording of Article 84 is as follows:

The claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought. They shall be clear and concise and be supported by the description. [1]

Rationale

The EPC requires that the claims be clear (for example the claim wording cannot be obscure) and define the matter for which protection is sought in terms of the technical features of the invention. [3] The rationale behind this requirement is to ensure that the public is not left in any doubt as to which subject-matter is covered by a particular patent and which is not. [4] That is, the scope of protection must be well-defined. [5] The clarity requirement therefore plays an important role in providing legal certainty for third parties to determine whether they are infringing or could infringe a patent, so as in turn to be able to make the most informed economic decisions as possible (such as taking a license, designing around, refraining from entering a market, etc.).

Clarity

According to the established case law of the EPO boards of appeal, the claims must be clear "in themselves when being read with the normal skills, but not including any knowledge derived from the description of the patent application ...". [6] In other words, the wording of a claim must be clear in itself.

As mentioned above, a claim must define the matter for which the protection is sought in terms of the technical features of the invention. [3] These technical features need not necessarily be structural however; they may also be functional. Structural features may for example consist in a nail, a screw or a rivet, whereas functional features define the suitability for performing certain functions, such as for example fastening means. [7] [8]

The scope of the claims must also not be "broader than is justified by the extent of the description and also the contribution to the art". [9] "[T]his requirement reflects the general legal principle that the extent of the patent monopoly, as defined by the claims, should correspond to the technical contribution to the art in order for it to be supported, or justified." [10]

Implementing regulations

Rule 43(1) EPC

Rule 43(1) EPC notably imposes that an independent claim should be drafted in a two-part form, including a preamble and a characterizing part. The preamble, which is sometimes also called "pre-characterizing portion", [11] includes all the features of the claim that in combination are known in a prior art document, namely the closest prior art. The characterizing part includes the other features, i.e., those not known in the prior art document used to draft the claim in a two-part form. The two-part form required by Rule 43(1) should be complied with "wherever appropriate". This manner of claiming an invention is also prescribed, in a similar manner, in the Patent Cooperation Treaty, namely in Rule 6.3(b) PCT.

Rule 43(2) EPC

A plurality of independent claims in the same claim category are only allowable in the exceptional circumstances listed in Rule 43(2)(a), (b) and (c). The applicant has the burden of showing "that one of the exceptions under Rule 43(2) EPC apply". [12] Rule 43(2) is only applicable during examination proceedings, not in opposition proceedings. [13]

Rule 62a EPC, which entered into force on April 1, 2010, [14] provides the opportunity for the EPO to invite the applicant to comply with Rule 43(2) before the search is carried out. This was not foreseen under the former regulations. [15] Under the new rules, if the claims as filed in a European patent application contain a plurality of independent claims in the same claim category and if the EPO considers in that case that the claims therefore do not comply with Rule 43(2) EPC, the EPO may "invite the applicant to indicate, within a period of two months, the claims complying with Rule 43, paragraph 2, on the basis of which the search is to be carried out." "If the applicant fails to provide such an indication in due time, the search shall be carried out on the basis of the first claim in each category". [16] A Rule 62a EPC objection may however be contested by the applicant in its reply to the search division or, later, before the examining division. [17] If the search division finds that its initial objection was not justified in view of the applicant's arguments, the search will then be carried out on an unlimited basis. [17] The examining division may also override the assessment of the search division. [17] Otherwise, the claims will have to be restricted, during examination, to the subject-matter searched. [18]

This amendment to the Implementing Regulations of the EPC is part of the so-called "raising the bar" initiative, with the claimed aim "to improve the quality of incoming patent applications and streamline the grant procedure". [19]

Applicability of Article 84 EPC in opposition and revocation proceedings

Article 84 EPC is neither a ground of opposition under Article 100 EPC nor a ground for revocation under Article 138(1) EPC. [20] Article 84 may however play a role in opposition proceedings, by virtue of Article 101(3) EPC, if the patent proprietor amends the claims. [21] In 2015, the Enlarged Board of Appeal held in G 3/14 that "the clarity of the amended claims of a patent may be examined in opposition proceedings only when, and then only to the extent that the amendment introduces non-compliance with Article 84 EPC." [22]

Interpretation of the claims in opposition proceedings

In opposition proceedings, if the claims of the opposed patent are sufficiently clear for a skilled person to understand them without difficulty, then there is no reason to consult the description to interpret the claims. [23] In other words, "the description can be used as the patent's "dictionary" to assess the correct meaning of ambiguous terms used in claims" but "if a term used in a claim has a clear technical meaning, the description cannot be used to interpret such a term in a different way." [24] Furthermore, when the claims are interpreted, they "must be interpreted through the eyes of the person skilled in the art, who should try - with synthetical propensity - to arrive at an interpretation of the claim which is technically meaningful and takes into account the whole disclosure of the patent". [25]

Notes

  1. ↑ Previously Rule 29 EPC 1973.

Related Research Articles

The patentability of software, computer programs and computer-implemented inventions under the European Patent Convention (EPC) is the extent to which subject matter in these fields is patentable under the Convention on the Grant of European Patents of October 5, 1973. The subject also includes the question of whether European patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) in these fields (sometimes called "software patents") are regarded as valid by national courts.

A person having ordinary skill in the art, a person of (ordinary) skill in the art, a person skilled in the art, a skilled addressee or simply a skilled person is a legal fiction found in many patent laws throughout the world. This hypothetical person is considered to have the normal skills and knowledge in a particular technical field, without being a genius. The person mainly serves as a reference for determining, or at least evaluating, whether an invention is non-obvious or not, or involves an inventive step or not. If it would have been obvious for this fictional person to come up with the invention while starting from the prior art, then the particular invention is considered not patentable.

The EPC 2000 or European Patent Convention 2000 is the version of the European Patent Convention (EPC) as revised by the Act Revising the Convention on the Grant of European Patents signed in Munich on November 29, 2000. On June 28, 2001, the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation adopted the final new text of the EPC 2000. The EPC 2000 entered into force on December 13, 2007.

The European Patent Convention (EPC), the multilateral treaty instituting the legal system according to which European patents are granted, contains provisions allowing a party to appeal a decision issued by a first instance department of the European Patent Office (EPO). For instance, a decision of an Examining Division refusing to grant a European patent application may be appealed by the applicant. The appeal procedure before the European Patent Office is under the responsibility of its Boards of Appeal, which are institutionally independent within the EPO.

The opposition procedure before the European Patent Office (EPO) is a post-grant, contentious, inter partes, administrative procedure intended to allow any European patent to be centrally opposed. European patents granted by the EPO under the European Patent Convention (EPC) may be opposed by any person from the public. This happens often when some prior art was not found during the grant procedure, but was only known by third parties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Representation before the European Patent Office</span>

The European Patent Convention (EPC), the multilateral treaty providing the legal system according to which European patents are granted, contains provisions regarding whether a natural or juristic person needs to be represented in proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO).

G 1/03 and G 2/03 are two decisions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), which were both issued on April 8, 2004.

This is a list of legal terms relating to patents and patent law. A patent is not a right to practice or use the invention claimed therein, but a territorial right to exclude others from commercially exploiting the invention, granted to an inventor or his successor in rights in exchange to a public disclosure of the invention.

T 258/03, also known as Auction Method/Hitachi, is a decision of a Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), issued on April 21, 2004. It is a landmark decision for interpreting Article 52(1) and (2) of the European Patent Convention (EPC) which built on the principles suggested by the same Board in T 641/00. This decision, amongst others, but notably this one and T 641/00, significantly affected the assessment of an invention’s technical character and inventive step.

T 641/00, also known as Two identities/COMVIK, is a decision of a Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), issued on September 26, 2002. It is a landmark decision regarding the patentable subject matter requirement and inventive step under the European Patent Convention (EPC). More generally, it is a significant decision regarding the patentability of business methods and computer-implemented inventions under the EPC.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Grant procedure before the European Patent Office</span>

The grant procedure before the European Patent Office (EPO) is an ex parte, administrative procedure, which includes the filing of a European patent application, the examination of formalities, the establishment of a search report, the publication of the application, its substantive examination, and the grant of a patent, or the refusal of the application, in accordance with the legal provisions of the European Patent Convention (EPC). The grant procedure is carried out by the EPO under the supervision of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation. The patents granted in accordance with the EPC are called European patents.

Article 123 of the European Patent Convention (EPC) relates to the amendments under the EPC, i.e. the amendments to a European patent application or patent, and notably the conditions under which they are allowable. In particular, Article 123(2) EPC prohibits adding subject-matter beyond the content of the application as filed, while Article 123(3) EPC prohibits an extension of the scope of protection by amendment after grant.

Article 83 of the European Patent Convention (EPC) relates to the disclosure of the invention under the European Patent Convention. This legal provision prescribes that a European patent application must disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art.

Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), European patents shall be granted for inventions which inter alia involve an inventive step. The central legal provision explaining what this means, i.e. the central legal provision relating to the inventive step under the EPC, is Article 56 EPC. That is, an invention, having regard to the state of the art, must not be obvious to a person skilled in the art. The Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) have developed an approach, called the "problem-and-solution approach", to assess whether an invention involves an inventive step.

Under case number G 3/08, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO issued on May 12, 2010 an opinion in response to questions referred to it by the President of the European Patent Office (EPO), Alison Brimelow, on October 22, 2008. The questions subject of the referral related to the patentability of programs for computers under the European Patent Convention (EPC) and were, according to the President of the EPO, of fundamental importance as they related to the definition of "the limits of patentability in the field of computing." In a 55-page long opinion, the Enlarged Board of Appeal considered the referral to be inadmissible because no divergent decisions had been identified in the referral.

Under Article 82 EPC, a European patent application must "...relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept." This legal provision is the application, within the European Patent Convention, of the requirement of unity of invention, which also applies also in other jurisdictions.

Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), European patents shall be granted for inventions which inter alia are new. The central legal provision explaining what this means, i.e. the central legal provision relating to the novelty under the EPC, is Article 54 EPC. Namely, "an invention can be patented only if it is new. An invention is considered to be new if it does not form part of the state of the art. The purpose of Article 54(1) EPC is to prevent the state of the art being patented again."

G 1/11 is a decision issued on 19 March 2014 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), holding that a Technical Board of Appeal rather than the Legal Board of Appeal is competent for an appeal against a decision of an Examining Division refusing a request for refund of a search fee under Rule 64(2) EPC, which has not been taken together with a decision granting a European patent or refusing a European patent application. In other words, the decision deals with the delimitation of competence between the EPO's Legal Board of Appeal and its Technical Boards of Appeal.

G 1/12 is a decision issued on 30 April 2014 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), holding that an appellant's identity in a notice of appeal can be corrected under Rule 101(2) EPC, provided the requirements of Rule 101(1) EPC are met. The Enlarged Board of Appeal also held that an appellant's identity can be corrected under Rule 139 EPC, first sentence, under the conditions established by the case law of the Boards of Appeal.

G 1/09 is a decision issued on 27 September 2010 by the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), holding that, following refusal of a European patent application, the application remains pending until the expiry of the time limit for filing a notice of appeal, so that a divisional application under Article 76 EPC may be filed even after the refusal of an application. More specifically, the divisional application may be filed until expiry of the time limit of two months for filing a notice of appeal under Article 108 EPC.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Article 84 EPC
  2. ↑ Nicholas Fox, A Guide to the EPC 2000, CIPA, page 74, ISBN   0-903932-26-1.
  3. 1 2 Article 84 EPC, Rule 43(1) EPC
  4. ↑ See for instance:
    • "In order to ensure that the public is not left in any doubt as to which subject-matter is covered by a particular patent and which is not, Article 84 EPC in combination with Rule 43(1) EPC requires that the claims shall be clear and define the matter for which protection is sought in terms of the technical features of the invention. A claim does not, therefore, fulfil the requirement of clarity if there is doubt as to the subject-matter it may cover (see case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 5th edition 2006, II.B.)" in Decision T 528/06 of 3 December 2008, Reasons 1.
    • "The purpose of claims under the EPC is to enable the protection conferred by the patent (or patent application) to be determined (...), and thus the rights of the patent owner within the designated Contracting States (...)." in G 2/88 (Friction reducing additive) of 11 December 1989, point 2.5.
    • "Article 84 EPC stipulates that the claims shall be clear and define the matter for which protection is sought. Those requirements serve the purpose of ensuring that it is possible to assess whether or not a given subject-matter falls within the ambit of a particular claim." in T 514/14 of 21 July 2017, reasons 2, first paragraph.
  5. ↑ See for example Decision T 359/12, reasons 3.3.2, last paragraph, last sentence: "Since the person skilled in the art cannot conclude in an objective way whether a particular "actual" detection zone boundary qualifies as being "trapezoidal or substantially rectangular", the scope of protection is not well-defined contrary to the requirements of Art. 84 EPC 1973."
  6. ↑ See for instance:
    • "On the one hand, Article 84 requires that the claims shall be clear. "This implies that the claims must be clear in themselves when being read with the normal skills, but not including any knowledge derived from the description of the patent application ..." (T 0908/04 of 15 February 2006, point 3.5 of the reasons). Therefore, a reference in the description can generally not render an otherwise unclear claim clear." in Decision T 1819/07 of 15 March 2011, Reasons 3.4.1;
    • "(...) the claims must be clear in themselves when read by the skilled person" in Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO (9th edition, July 2019), ii.a.3.5 "Characterisation of an invention by a parameter";
    • "In decision T 454/89 the board shared this view and explained that Art. 84 EPC 1973 requires that claims must be clear in themselves when read using normal skills, including knowledge of the prior art but not any knowledge derived from the description contained in the patent application or the amended patent." and "The clarity stipulation under Art. 84 EPC 1973 concerned only the claims, and therefore – according to the established case law of the EPO boards of appeal – required that they be clear in themselves, without there being any need for the skilled person to refer to the description." in Legal Research Service for the Boards of Appeal, European Patent Office, Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO (9th edition, July 2019), ii.a.6.3.5 "Use in the examination relating to the clarity requirement pursuant to Article 84 EPC"
  7. ↑ Guidelines for Examination in the EPO , section f-iv, 2.1 : "Technical features"
  8. ↑ T 1098/14, Reasons 5.
  9. ↑ Decision T 1486/08 of 23 February 2012, Reasons 1.4, referring to T 0409/91, OJ EPO 9/1994, 653, Reasons 3.2, penultimate sentence and Reasons 3.3, second sentence.
  10. ↑ Decision T 409/91 dated 18 March 1993 (OJ EPO 9/1994, 653), Reasons 3.3, second sentence.
  11. ↑ See for instance "The pre-characterising portion of the claim is based on..." in Decision T 0443/11 of 30 January 2012, item 2.1.
  12. ↑ Decision T 0592/15 (Polymeric core-shell nanoparticles/BRIDGESTONE) of 26.11.2018, at 2.2.3: "In the case of more than one independent claim per category, the applicant bears the burden to show that one of the exceptions under Rule 43(2) EPC apply (T 1388/10, Reasons 7.2 and 7.3 citing T 56/01, Reasons 5)."
  13. ↑ Decision T 263/05 dated June 28, 2007, Headnote II.1
  14. ↑ Decision of the Administrative Council of 25 March 2009 amending the Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention (CA/D 3/09), Article 2(1).
  15. ↑ EPO web site, Notice from the European Patent Office dated 15 October 2009 concerning amendments to the Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention (EPC) Archived 19 October 2009 at the Wayback Machine , 15 October 2009, point 2.1.
  16. ↑ Decision of the Admin. Council, CA/D 3/09, Article 1.1.
  17. 1 2 3 EPO web site, Notice from the EPO dated 15 October 2009 concerning amendments to the Implementing Regulations to the EPC, 15 October 2009, point 2.2.
  18. ↑ New rule 62a(2) EPC. See Decision of the Admin. Council, CA/D 3/09, Article 1.1.
  19. ↑ EPO web site, Notice from the EPO dated 15 October 2009 concerning amendments to the Implementing Regulations to the EPC, 15 October 2009, 1. Introduction.
  20. ↑ See for instance: Decision T 0075/09 of 13 September 2011, Reasons for the Decision 2.8, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs:
    "... a deficiency concerning the requirements of Article 84 EPC is neither a ground for opposition before the EPO under Article 100 EPC nor a ground for revocation under Article 138(1) EPC. Consequently, such a deficiency cannot be dealt with, let alone remedied in either proceedings.
    Reference can be made in this respect to established jurisdiction, namely to the Decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal G 9/91, (OJ EPO 1993, 408, No. 19 of the reasons) and e.g. Decisions T 301/87 (OJ EPO 1990, 335, No. 3.8 of the reasons) and T 690/00 of 20 February 2002 (No. 4.1 of the reasons; not published in OJ EPO, cf. also Chapter VII.D.4.2 in the Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, 6th edition, 2010)."
  21. ↑ David Rogers, Lack of clarity as a ground in opposition proceedings, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2007, Vol. 2, No. 8, p. 502.
  22. ↑ "Decision G 3/14 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal". European Patent Office. March 26, 2015. Retrieved 10 November 2019.
  23. ↑ See for instance:
    • "Although a claim must not be interpreted in a way which is illogical or does not make any sense, the description cannot be used to give a different meaning to a claim feature which in itself imparts a clear credible technical teaching to the skilled reader..." in Decision T 1018/02 of 9 December 2003, Catchwords. (T 1018/02 is cited with approval in (in French) decision T 0369/10 of 1 October 2012, reasons 2.1.2, second paragraph.)
    • (in German) "Sind die Patentansprüche so deutlich und eindeutig abgefasst, dass der Fachmann sie problemlos verstehen kann, so besteht keine Veranlassung die Beschreibung zur Interpretation der Patentansprüche heranzuziehen. Bei einer Diskrepanz zwischen den Patentansprüchen und der Beschreibung ist der eindeutige Anspruchswortlaut so auszulegen, wie ihn der Fachmann ohne Zuhilfenahme der Beschreibung verstehen würde.
    Somit sind bei einer Diskrepanz zwischen deutlich definierten Patentansprüchen und der Beschreibung solche Teile der Beschreibung, die in den Patentansprüchen keinen Niederschlag haben, grundsätzlich in der Beurteilung der Neuheit und der erfinderischen Tätigkeit nicht zu berücksichtigen." in Decision T 0197/10 of 28 October 2011, Leitsatz.
  24. ↑ T 2221/10 , Reasons for the Decision 33(Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office4 February 2014)("According to established case law of the Boards of Appeal the description can be used as the patent's "dictionary" to assess the correct meaning of ambiguous terms used in claims. However, if a term used in a claim has a clear technical meaning, the description cannot be used to interpret such a term in a different way. In case of a discrepancy between the claims and the description, the unambiguous claim wording must be interpreted as it would be understood by the person skilled in the art without the help of the description (e.g. decision T 197/10 of 28 October 2011, and the Case law of the Boards of Appeal, 7th Edition 2013, II.A.6.3.1, page 268).").
  25. ↑ "T 0450/20 09-03-2023 | Epo.org". new.epo.org. Reasons 2.3. According to the established case law, patent claims must be interpreted through the eyes of the person skilled in the art, who should try - with synthetical propensity - to arrive at an interpretation of the claim which is technically meaningful and takes into account the whole disclosure of the patent (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 10th edition 2022, II.A.6.1, first paragraph).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.