ARTICLE
11 March 2026

New Referral To The Enlarged Board Of Appeal Expected Regarding Claim Interpretation In The Context Of Added Subject Matter

JA
J A Kemp LLP

Contributor

J A Kemp is a leading firm of European Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys. We combine independent thinking with collective excellence in all that we do. The technical and legal knowledge that we apply to the protection of our clients’ patents is outstanding in its breadth and depth. With around 100 science and technology graduates in the firm, including 50 PhDs, no area of science or technology is outside our scope. Our Patent Attorneys have collective in-depth expertise in patent law and procedure in every country of the world. The team of professionals who advise our clients on trade mark and design matters have backgrounds in major international law firms and hold qualifications as Chartered UK Trade Mark Attorneys, Solicitors and European Trade Mark Professional Representatives. Dedicated to this specialist area of intellectual property protection, the team has the expertise and resources to protect trade marks and designs in any market worldwide.
The European Patent Office's Board of Appeal 3.3.05 has decided to refer (in T0873/24) questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) concerning whether the decision in G1/24 should apply to the assessment...
United States Intellectual Property

The European Patent Office's Board of Appeal 3.3.05 has decided to refer (in T0873/24) questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) concerning whether the decision in G1/24 should apply to the assessment of added subject matter.

In June 2025, the EBA issued its decision in G1/24, holding that: "The description and drawings shall always be consulted to interpret the claims when assessing the patentability of an invention under Articles 52 to 57 EPC..." Our technical briefing on G1/24 can be found here.

G1/24 did not explicitly address whether the description and drawings should always be consulted to interpret the claims when assessing added subject matter (governed under Articles 123(2) and 76(1) EPC).

The outcome in T0873/24 appears to depend upon whether the description is used to interpret a particular feature of claim 1, in the context of an objection of unallowably added subject matter. Claim 1 relates to a pre-coated steel strip and the feature in question is: "wherein the ratio of titanium to nitrogen is in excess of 3.42". From the minutes of the oral proceedings held on 3 February 2026, it appears that the ratio could be interpreted as (i) a weight ratio in the context of the claim alone, or (ii) a term encompassing either a molar ratio or weight ratio when the description is consulted. The Board appears to consider that the decision hinges on whether G1/24 applies when assessing added subject matter and, if so, to what extent.

The Board is yet to publish the exact questions it will refer to the EBA. We shall wait to see the questions, and whether the EBA will indeed accept the referral.

J A Kemp LLP acts for clients in the USA, Europe and globally, advising on UK and European patent practice and representing them before the European Patent Office, UKIPO and Unified Patent Court. We have in-depth expertise in a wide range of technologies, including Biotech and Life Sciences, Pharmaceuticals, Software and IT, Chemistry, Electronics and Engineering and many others. See our website to find out more.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More