{"id":41267,"date":"2025-08-21T10:01:34","date_gmt":"2025-08-21T08:01:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/?p=41267"},"modified":"2025-08-21T10:46:30","modified_gmt":"2025-08-21T08:46:30","slug":"interpreting-the-claims-where-epo-and-upc-meet","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/interpreting-the-claims-where-epo-and-upc-meet\/","title":{"rendered":"Interpreting the claims \u2013 where EPO and UPC meet and part ways"},"content":{"rendered":"

Claim interpretation compared: a closer look at EPO and UPC<\/h2>\n

As previously reported, the Enlarged Board of Appeal\u2019s decision in G 1\/24<\/strong><\/a> has marked a significant restatement of the EPO\u2019s principles on claim construction. It has confirmed that, for the EPO, the starting point for interpreting a patent is always the wording of the claims, which define the invention for the purposes of patentability under Articles 52\u201357 EPC. Crucially, the Board held that the description and drawings must always be consulted<\/strong>\u2014not only when the claims are ambiguous. For the EPO, this obligation applies even where the claim language seems clear, ensuring that interpretation is rooted in the context provided by the patent as a whole. This approach is inclusive: the description is a constant interpretative tool, and examples given there may influence how a feature in the claim is understood. In practice, the EPO\u2019s method tends to accommodate a broader view of the claim\u2019s meaning, so long as that meaning can be reconciled with the claim wording.<\/p>\n

The UPC\u2019s general approach<\/strong> to claim construction is in some respects similar, but has its own procedural and conceptual framing. The Court of Appeal has made clear\u2014most notably in NanoString v. 10x Genomics<\/strong>\u2014that claim construction is a matter of law<\/strong> for the court to decide, not a question delegated to experts. The standard is how the skilled person, in light of the description and drawings, would understand the claim. Like the EPO after G 1\/24, the UPC also regards the description and drawings as always relevant<\/strong>. But the court\u2019s role is not to reconcile all embodiments in the description with the claim language; rather, it is to establish the autonomous technical meaning of the claim and assess whether the description supports, contradicts, or leaves that meaning unaffected.<\/p>\n

It is in this framework that the recent Agfa decision<\/strong> (UPC CFI 278\/2023, Hamburg Local Division) sits. The case concerned a claim to an \u201cachromatic color\u201d base coat. The description listed examples\u2014off-white, pale clay, pale yellow\u2014that might, on a descriptive reading, seem to fall within that category. The court, however, applied the technical meaning of \u201cachromatic color\u201d (wavelength components roughly equal in amount) and concluded that these examples did not meet the definition. They were therefore excluded from the claim\u2019s scope. Agfa demonstrates that while the UPC consults the description as a matter of principle, it will not allow inconsistent description passages to expand the claim\u2019s meaning beyond its clear technical sense.<\/p>\n

In contrast, G 1\/24<\/strong> gives the description a more active, shaping role in EPO proceedings, even where the claims appear clear on their face. The contrast is subtle but important:<\/p>\n