Adriaan Seerden
- European and Dutch Patent Attorney
Frits Schut
- European and Dutch Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
Saskia van Doorn
- European and Dutch Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
Otto Oudshoorn
- European and Dutch Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
Marco Molling
- European, Dutch and Belgian Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
Bart Jan Niestadt
- European, Dutch and Belgian Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
Hajo Kraak
- European and Dutch Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
Peter de Lange
- European and Dutch Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
Leen Beller
- European and Dutch Patent Attorney
Annemie Jaeken
- European, Dutch and Belgian Patent Attorney, European Patent Litigator
News
G 1/25: the description must be adapted only where an inconsistency leads to non-compliance with the EPC
In G 1/25 (Enlarged Board of Appeal, 3 September 2026), the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) decided whether, and on what legal basis, the description must be adapted when the claims are amended. The decision resolves a long-standing divergence in the case law of the Boards of Appeal and builds directly on G 1/24. The Enlarged Board chose a middle course: adaptation is required only where an inconsistency between the amended claims and the description leads to non-compliance with a requirement of the EPC.
Continue readingUPC clarifies lack of entitlement as a ground for revocation under Article 138(1)(e) EPC
In UPC_CFI_523/2025, Wittenstein SE v Vestas Wind Systems A/S, the Court of First Instance, Central Division (Section Munich), decided on 2 September 2026 how lack of entitlement may operate as a ground for revocation under Article 138(1)(e) EPC. The Court held that it is not sufficient for a claimant to establish rights to only part of the patented subject-matter: revocation on this ground requires proof that the registered proprietor has no rights to the patent.
Continue readingUPC Court of Appeal on added matter: intermediate generalisation requires a functional or structural link
In UPC_CoA_884/2025, Court of Appeal, 13 August 2026, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) considered when omission of a feature from an embodiment amounts to an unallowable intermediate generalisation. The decision clarifies the relationship between the general added-matter test, the concept of intermediate generalisation and the question whether an omitted feature is essential to the invention.
Continue reading