Article 84

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

UPC Case Law

Court of First Instance

IPPT20251127, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Pai Pharma v Philips

The Court may may not assess clarity and conciseness issues, if they stem from unclarity issues already present in granted dependent claims (Article 84 EPC). 

IPPT20251120, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Baussmann v Raimund Beck Nageltechnik
There is no lack of clarity in the amended claim 1 in which the numerical value of the angle (40° - 60°) has been changed (Article 84 EPC). According to the original application, larger angles, such as 90°, are disclosed. The skilled person is taught, that angles  >60° are also possible, with 90° being mentioned as an example. 

IPPT20250822, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Brita v Aquashield
Any amendment to the contested patent must satisfy the requirements of Article 84 EPC. Rule 30.1(b) RoP explicitly requires that a request for amendment of the patent must include, inter alia, an explanation of why the amendment meets the requirements of Article 84 EPC. It must therefore be examined whether the amendment introduces a lack of clarity. 

IPPT20250508, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Grundfos v Hefei

Enabling disclosure (Article 83 EPC). That the patent specification learns nothing regarding the design of means for connecting, does not relate to the feasibility, but at most to the clarity of the claim [Article 84 EPC], which is not a ground for invalidity within the meaning of Art. 138 EPC. 

IPPT20250128, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Fujifilm v Kodak
Clarity and conciseness (Article 84 EPC) can only be examined for amendments to the claims of a granted patent in as far as any unclarity or inconciseness in the amended claims is the result of the amendment and was not already present in the granted claims (so also G 3/14).

IPPT20241105, UPC CFI, CD Paris, NJOY v Juul - I
The clarity of the claim is a fundamental requirement for a claim to be considered allowable, especially in view of its function in defining the matter for which protection is sought. The necessity for claims within an application to amend under R. 50 RoP to pertain to the requirement of clarity is emphasized by the reference to Art. 84 EPC in R 50.2 RoP. RoP 50.2 (b) requires the application to amend to contain an explanation as to why the amendments satisfy the requirements of Article 84 EPC. 

IPPT20250410, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Yellow Sphere v Tabbert

Clarity of the claim (Article 84 EPC) is not a ground for invalidity within the meaning of Article 138 EPC.

IPPT20240729, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Bitzer v Carrier Corporation
No lack of clarity of the term “temperatures” (Article 84 EPC). A person of ordinary skill in the art, applying a natural reading to the phrase ‘a plurality of sensors to monitor temperatures’, would understand this to mean a plurality of environmental sensors, each monitoring temperature. This conclusion is supported by the general meaning of the expression in question, as well as by para. [0011] and Fig. 2.