REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - Beyond the ai hype: ai in patent prosecution
​

When “better” isn’t good enough under Art. 84 EPC

No items found.
​
September 18, 2025
Additional information
Chevron icon
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

In the recent Decision T 2387/22, the Board's key message was: if you define an invention by a "relative improvement" of a known technical effect, the improvement must be expressed in "objectively verifiable" terms. Vague language like "stronger" or "fewer", unsurprisingly, won't cut it.

In this case, claim 1 of ARs 9 to 11 defined the use of a particular pigment in a flexographic ink formulation for providing: "fewer print defects, higher hiding and stronger colour and allowing a lower volume anilox".


The Board found these terms unclear because they lacked measurable parameters. Applying the above principle, it held that such wording fails Art. 84 EPC, especially when the prior art is close.
One noteworthy quote for opponents challenging ARs: "Where, as in the present case, the prior art is technically close to the claimed subject-matter, the clarity of the distinguishing features becomes all the more critical, since such proximity makes it readily apparent how vague or diffuse definitions may give rise to legal uncertainty in the assessment of patentability."


The Main Request fell for lack of inventive step, but the clarity issues around ARs 9 to 11 earned this decision a "C" distribution.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending risks liability for defendant’s costs
24 September 2026
The Court of Appeal held that setting aside a first-instance decision granting relief subject to recurring penalties generally has retroactive effect. Any penalty fees already paid will be refunded by the Court. The value of proceedings is determined by the interest of the party that brought the action. This is not changed as a result of an appeal. A claimant bringing enforcement proceedings while an appeal is still pending does so at its own risk and may be liable for the defendant’s costs related to the enforcement proceedings.‍
​
Replacement parts and the value of asserting a narrower claim combination
17 July 2026
The UPC's Düsseldorf Local Division found that Wessper's cartridges indirectly infringed Brita's patent, and that a narrower claim combination can turn a consumable into an essential element.
​
Preliminary objection on jurisdiction partially successful – UPC clarifies requirements of anchor-defendant jurisdiction for non-UPC territories
25 June 2026
The Hamburg Local Division let Nixu pursue US-based Infoblox in the UPC for Germany, France and Finland, but threw out the UK claim. To reach a non-UPC territory through an anchor defendant, a claimant must plead joint infringement there.
​