The IP Federation has submitted observations at the European Patent Office as amicus curiae in respect of Enlarged Board of Appeal case G 1/25 (“Hydroponics”). This relates to the interlocutory decision of 29 July 2025 in case T 0697/22. The following points of law have been referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
1. If the claims of a European patent are amended during opposition proceedings or opposition-appeal proceedings, and the amendment introduces an inconsistency between the amended claims and the description of the patent, is it necessary, to comply with the requirements of the EPC, to adapt the description to the amended claims so as to remove the inconsistency?
2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, which requirement(s) of the EPC necessitate(s) such an adaptation?
3. Would the answer to questions 1 and 2 be different if the claims of a European patent application are amended during examination proceedings or examination-appeal proceedings, and the amendment introduces an inconsistency between the amended claims and the description of the patent application?
In conclusion, the IP Federation urges the Enlarged Board to answer Questions 1 and 3 in the negative:
- The EPC does not require adaptation of the description to remove inconsistencies after claim amendments.
- Imposing such a requirement is legally unfounded, inefficient, and contrary to international best practice.
For full details, click HERE.
To see all the amicus curiae briefs submitted on Enlarged Board of Appeal case G 1/25 (“Hydroponics”), click HERE.
