• Our People
  • Global Presence
  • Regions
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Americas
  • Offices
    • Canada
      • Ottawa
      • Toronto
    • China
      • Beijing
      • Hong Kong
    • Luxembourg
    • Malaysia
    • Singapore
    • UK
      • Aberdeen
      • Birmingham
      • Cambridge
      • Edinburgh
      • Glasgow
      • London
      • Manchester
      • Oxford
  • Client liaison
    • Japan
    • Korea
  • Expertise
  • Services
    • Patents
    • Brands & Trade Marks
    • Designs
    • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
    • Commercial IP & Contracts
    • Due Diligence
    • Freedom to Operate
    • EPO Patent Oppositions
    • European Patent Validations
    • Anti-counterfeiting
    • Open Source & Third Party Code
  • Sectors
    • Digital Transformation
      • 3D Printing
      • Artificial Intelligence
      • Blockchain
      • Data & Connectivity
      • Extended Reality
      • Industry 4.0
    • Energy & Environment
    • Life Sciences
    • Agritech
    • Medical Technologies
    • Chemistry
    • Transport
    • Entertainment & Creative Industries
    • Food & Drink
    • Fashion & Retail
    • Universities & Research Bodies
    • Start-ups & Spin-outs
      • Creating value for start-ups
      • The IP driven start-up
    • Financial Services
  • About Us
    • Working with us
    • Awards
    • Corporate & Social Responsibility
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Careers
  • Insights
    • Articles
    • News
    • Events
    • Resources
    • Unified Patent Court hub
    • Beyond Brexit: European trade mark hub
    • M&C Reacts
  • Contact Us
Marks & Clerk logo
Marks & Clerk logo
Contact Us
Language
English
Our People
Global Presence
Regions
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Americas
Offices
  • Canada
    • Ottawa
    • Toronto
  • China
    • Beijing
    • Hong Kong
  • Luxembourg
  • Malaysia
  • Singapore
  • UK
    • Aberdeen
    • Birmingham
    • Cambridge
    • Edinburgh
    • Glasgow
    • London
    • Manchester
    • Oxford
Client liaison
  • Japan
  • Korea
Expertise
Services
  • Patents
  • Brands & Trade Marks
  • Designs
  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
  • Commercial IP & Contracts
  • Due Diligence
  • Freedom to Operate
  • EPO Patent Oppositions
  • European Patent Validations
  • Anti-counterfeiting
  • Open Source & Third Party Code
Sectors
  • Digital Transformation
    • 3D Printing
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Blockchain
    • Data & Connectivity
    • Extended Reality
    • Industry 4.0
  • Energy & Environment
  • Life Sciences
  • Agritech
  • Medical Technologies
  • Chemistry
  • Transport
  • Entertainment & Creative Industries
  • Food & Drink
  • Fashion & Retail
  • Universities & Research Bodies
  • Start-ups & Spin-outs
    • Creating value for start-ups
    • The IP driven start-up
  • Financial Services
About Us
  • Working with us
  • Awards
  • Corporate & Social Responsibility
  • Diversity & Inclusion
  • Careers
Insights
  • Articles
  • News
  • Events
  • Resources
  • Unified Patent Court hub
  • Beyond Brexit: European trade mark hub
  • M&C Reacts

Article 123(2) and (3) EPC: avoiding the “inescapable trap”

25 January 2018
Print
Share
Article 123(2) of the European Patent Convention states that “The European patent application or patent may not be amended in such a way that it contains subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed”. Whilst the patent law of most countries contains a similar provision, few patent offices are as strict in their application of it as the European Patent Office.

This is an issue we see crop up time and again for our clients, especially those filing from the US.

The standard applied by the EPO is that the amended claim must be directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed. Whilst support for an amendment may be implicit, in practice it is often difficult to persuade a European Examiner to accept any amendment not having literal basis in the application as filed.

The strict European approach to added matter can be frustrating for those used to the more relaxed approach of the USPTO, as often amendments which are readily permissible in the US run into problems at the EPO. For example in Europe it is generally extremely difficult to:

 
  • make intermediate generalisations, i.e. import a feature into a claim in isolation from an originally disclosed combination;
  • derive basis from examples or figures;
  • combine multiple features which are not specifically disclosed in combination; and
  • cross reference external documents
To further complicate matters, once a European patent is granted it is not possible to amend it in such a way as to extend the protection it confers (Article 123(3) EPC). The practical consequence of this is that if a limiting amendment introduced during prosecution is found, post-grant (e.g. in Opposition proceedings), to add matter in contravention of Article 123(2) EPC, it may not be possible to save the patent because deletion of the limiting feature would broaden the scope of the claim and thus violate Article 123(3).

This so-called Article 123(2)-123(3) “trap” means that it is especially important when drafting an application to include sufficient basis for potential amendments.

It is possible to minimise the likelihood of added matter objections arising in Europe by bearing in mind the following tips when drafting priority and PCT applications which might eventually end up before the European Patent Office:

 
  1. Include a claim matrix with multiple dependencies at the end of the description - this will ensure that you can later combine dependent claims from the original claim set;
  2. Ensure all the claim language is included in the description;
  3. Fallbacks should clearly refer back to claims of all categories - otherwise, it may be impossible to import a feature described in the context of a product into a method claim, or vice versa;
  4. Descriptions of preferred examples of claim features should link directly with the claim features, i.e. ensure consistent use of terminology throughout;
  5. Include tiered fallback positions;
  6. Include references to features both separately and in combination - this will help avoid accusations of intermediate generalisation
Next Story
  • Preliminary position on priority published
  • Cambridge: City of Innovation - The Oxford-Cambridge Innovation Arc
  • International patent insights on quantum computing
  • InterDigital v Lenovo: The latest FRAND judgment
  • Cambridge: City of Innovation - The 'beer summit' that generated a genomic revolution
More insights

Latest Insights

Article
- 30 March 2023

That’s a wrap! CJEU confirms position on protection for designs dictated by technical function

"Think about the common sense answer and then it's probably something else!" - that's what I always say to anyone I'm training when they ask me a question about a specific piece of IP law.
Read more
Image: Nike Air Max
Article
- 30 March 2023

Nike block MAX 1 for Verstappen

Max Verstappen's plans to launch a MAX 1 clothing range have run into a roadblock, as Nike successfully oppose his Benelux trade mark application on the basis of their rights in AIR MAX. 
Read more
Chemistry
Article
- 24 March 2023

Preliminary position on priority published

As we reported in early 2022, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO are considering two pending referrals (G1/22 and G2/22) regarding the question of entitlement to priority. A hearing has now been set for 26 May 2023, and the Enlarged Board have now issued a preliminary opinion setting out the points to be discussed.
Read more
Marks & Clerk logo (white)
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Notice
  • Cookies
  • Legal Notices
  • Press Enquiries
  • Lexology
  • Mondaq