EQE Paper F key terms

The right to claim an earlier filing date for subject matter disclosed in a previous application, available to the same applicant or a successor in title within twelve months for patents and six months for utility models and designs.

A priority claim covering only some of the subject matter of a claim, so that different embodiments of one claim carry different effective dates, which matters when assessing novelty and inventive step against intervening prior art.

The rule that priority is granted only for subject matter which the person skilled in the art can derive directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, from the earlier application as a whole.

The date from which a claim is assessed for novelty and inventive step, normally the filing date but earlier where valid priority attaches to the claimed subject matter.

A document published after the priority date but before the filing date of the application, relevant only if priority is lost for the subject matter concerned, often decisive in partial priority disputes.

The standard for deciding whether a feature is disclosed in a document: it must be derivable from the explicit content and any implicit features apparent to the skilled person, without speculation.

Subject matter in an amended application that extends beyond the content of the application as filed, assessed by the same direct and unambiguous derivability standard used for priority and novelty.

The provision prohibiting amendments that extend the subject matter of a European patent application or patent beyond the content of the application as filed, the central test for all claim and description amendments.

The provision forbidding amendment of the claims of a granted European patent in a way that extends the protection conferred, applied to amendments made in opposition and limitation proceedings.

The specific passage of the application as filed, identified by page, line or paragraph, from which an amended feature is directly and unambiguously derivable, which must be documented in the reply.

An amendment converting a claim from one category to another, such as product to process or use, which must satisfy added subject-matter and extension-of-protection rules and may raise clarity issues.

The requirement that claims be clear, concise and supported by the description, judged from the skilled person's viewpoint and relevant to amendments and to objections raised in opposition.

A claim feature defined by what it achieves rather than how it is made, allowable only if the skilled person can verify it without undue burden and it does not cover embodiments not disclosed.

The process of construing claim wording in light of the description and drawings from the skilled person's perspective, used for novelty, added matter and infringement analysis alike.

The requirement that an invention not form part of the state of the art, assessed by comparing a single prior document or disclosure with the claim, feature by feature.

Everything made available to the public by written or oral description, use, or any other way before the effective date of the claim, subject to narrow exclusions such as non-prejudicial disclosures.

The requirement that an invention not be obvious to a person skilled in the art having regard to the state of the art, assessed by the problem-and-solution approach.

The structured methodology for inventive step: identify the closest prior art, determine the distinguishing features and objective technical problem, then ask whether the claimed solution was obvious.

The single document or disclosure providing the most promising starting point for assessing inventive step, usually sharing the same technical field and purpose and the most features with the claim.

The technical problem solved by the distinguishing features over the closest prior art, formulated on the basis of the technical effect achieved rather than the applicant's stated aim.

A benefit of the claimed invention not predictable from the prior art, which can support inventive step where it is plausibly achieved across the scope of the claim.

The hypothetical practitioner with average knowledge and routine ability in the relevant technical field, used as the benchmark for sufficiency, clarity, added matter and inventive step.

Basic textbook and handbook knowledge in the field that a skilled person is expected to possess, usable to fill gaps in a disclosure without providing a teaching of the claimed solution.

The requirement that the application disclose the invention clearly and completely enough for the skilled person to carry it out across the claimed scope without undue burden.

Whether the application makes it credible that the technical effect relied upon is achieved over the claimed range, relevant to sufficiency and to inventive step arguments based on effect.

The nine months after publication of the mention of grant within which any person may file an opposition against the European patent, an unextendable time limit.

The exhaustive list in Article 100 EPC on which an opposition may be based, covering added matter, insufficient disclosure, unpatentability and extension of protection.

The party filing an opposition, who must present facts, evidence and arguments in support of the grounds and bears the burden of proving the grounds raised.

The patent owner defending the opposition, who may respond to objections and propose amendments, including auxiliary requests, within the time limits set by the division.

A fallback set of claims filed by the proprietor, considered in order only if the higher-ranking request fails, commonly used in opposition and appeal to preserve a defensible claim scope.

The primary set of claims on which the proprietor relies, considered before any auxiliary request and replaced by the first successful auxiliary request if it fails.

The duty of a party to establish the facts it asserts, typically resting on the opponent for grounds of opposition and shifting in defined situations such as alleged public prior use.

The degree of conviction required to accept a fact, generally the balance of probabilities before the EPO, with stricter requirements for allegations of public prior use or common general knowledge.

Use of an invention in public before the effective date, which can destroy novelty or support an inventive-step attack only if the occurrence, date and details are proven to the required standard.

The result a claimed feature produces in use, which underpins the objective technical problem and must be plausible and attributable to the distinguishing features.

A claimed sub-range or subgroup chosen from a broader prior disclosure, inventive only if it is narrow, purposive and provides a technical effect not shown by the broader disclosure.