Claim Interpretation Consistency – EPO’s recent decision

A Recent Decision from the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office

The appeal case T 0177/22 before the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) exemplifies the critical role claim interpretation plays in patent prosecution and litigation. Claim interpretation, which involves determining the scope and meaning of the claims in a patent application or granted patent, defines the boundaries of the patent holder’s exclusive rights. Accurate claim interpretation influences a patent’s validity, enforceability, and infringement analysis.

During prosecution, clear and precise claims are necessary to meet legal requirements and avoid rejection by patent offices. In litigation, claim interpretation can determine the outcome of disputes over patent infringement and validity, making it pivotal in protecting intellectual property rights.

The appeal case T 0177/22 involved a patent related to a hot water system, owned by EC Power A/S, and faced opposition from Grundfos Holding A/S. The opposition challenged the patent on multiple grounds, including lack of novelty, inventive step, and sufficiency of disclosure. A central issue in the appeal was the consistency of claim interpretation for sufficiency of disclosure versus its interpretation for assessing novelty and inventive step. During the appeal, the opponent (respondent) proposed that a broader interpretation should be used for assessing novelty and inventive step than for assessing sufficiency of disclosure.

The Board of Appeal disagreed with the opponent’s approach and argued for a consistent claim interpretation. The Board emphasized that Articles 54(1) EPC regarding novelty, 56 EPC regarding inventive step, 100(b) and 83 EPC regarding sufficiency of disclosure, all include the term “invention” referring to the same claimed subject matter.

In the Board’s view, this means that a given patent claim’s subject matter must be interpreted uniformly and consistently across all these assessments. Additionally, the Board stressed that claim interpretation must be objective and should not be adjusted solely to favor or disadvantage a party in specific grounds of opposition or legal proceedings. Therefore, the Board decided to use the same claim interpretation for assessing sufficiency of disclosure, novelty, and inventive step.

The EPO Board of Appeal’s decision in case T 0177/22 underscores the importance of consistent claim interpretation across different legal assessments. This case highlights the essential role that uniform claim interpretation plays in maintaining a fair and predictable patent system.