UPC CFI, CD Paris, 18 March 2026: Sufficient to identify an embodiment covered by the amended patent but not the granted patent for an impermissible extension of protection.
22-06-2026 Print this page
Patent valid in amended form (Article 65 UPCA, Article 123 (3) EPC ).
Claim Interpretation (Article 69 EPC).
A claim must be interpreted as a whole, in a logical and consistent manner. Nothing would lead a person skilled in the art reading this claim to believe that [….] each time the word “air” appears, they are free to consider the various options independently of the other instances.
The text of the claim takes precedence over the description in the interpretation of a claim where there are certain contradictions between the description and a claim of the patent, and a person skilled in the art would readily identify these contradictions.
Amendments – impermissible extension of protection (Article 123 (3) EPC)
Claim 1 - main request extends beyond patent as granted.
It is sufficient to identify an embodiment covered by the amended patent but not covered by the granted patent to conclude that there has been an impermissible extension of protection.
Scenario 4 is covered by claim 1 of the main request, whereas it was not covered by claim 1 of the issued patent, therefore, the scope of protection has been unlawfully extended.
Amendments of auxiliary claims 1.1, 1.3, 1.6 (based on the main request) admissible as correction of obvious clerical errors- but rejected. (Rule 30 RoP).
The correction of obvious clerical errors in the relevant documents at the first opportunity, does not constitute a new ground and is admissible.
Having regard in particular to the second recital of the preamble to the Rules of Procedure, the absence of a specific rule concerning a party’s ability to correct an obvious error does not imply that such a correction would be prohibited in proceedings before the UPC.
