直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

European IP Blog

EPO Post Grant Central Limitation: A Useful Tool for Patent Owners

11 May 2018

Authored and Edited by Shrey Pathak, Ph.D.; Leythem A. Wall

Once a patent is granted by the European Patent Office (EPO), it becomes a bundle of national patents. As a result when looking to amend a European patent after grant, despite attempts to harmonise national patent laws and practice, different countries may have different requirements as well as fees for making changes to the patent in those states.

The revision of the European Patent Convention (EPC) in December 2007 introduced Article 105a EPC and a relatively quick, cost effective and straightforward centralised procedure at the EPO to amend a European patent in all validated states after grant.  In this respect the patentee may limit the scope of their European patent at any given time after grant, except when the patent is being opposed or appealed at the EPO.

The request requires payment of a fee (1165 EUR) and the proposed limiting amendment(s) should be clear (Article 84 EPC), not add matter (Article 123(2) EPC), and not extend the protection conferred (Article 123(3) EPC). Unlike reissue proceedings in the United States, the central limitation procedure does not re-open the prosecution of the patent and there is no assessment of novelty or inventive step of the amended claims.

Once the limitation request is allowed, the patentee will have to pay a fee for republication of the amended patent and file translations of the amended claims into the other official languages of the EPO.

It is not permissible to amend merely to resolve a clarity issue or to add additional claims directed to different subject-matter, there must be a reduction in scope. Non-limiting amendments are only allowed if they are a consequence of a limitation already present in the claim. Even though limiting the subject-matter of the dependent claims may be accepted, addition of new dependent claims is not allowed unless they are a direct consequence of the limiting amendment. 

This procedure may be useful for example to address deficiencies in a patent claim especially when litigation is contemplated in a number of states. In a scenario where a patentee is made aware of a document that might prejudice the validity of their granted patent, they may proactively choose to amend the claims of their European patent by filing a request for limitation at the EPO. Usefully here, the patentee is not obliged to explain why they wish to limit the scope of their European Patent.

To summarise, post grant central limitation at the EPO is an efficient and cost effective way for a patentee to restrict the scope of their granted patent in a consistent manner in all validated states. For further information on the procedure and associated strategies, including coordinating with corresponding national and also US proceedings, please go to our webinar here on post grant amendment strategies.

Tags

claim amendments, Aqua Products v. Matal, European Patent Office (EPO), opposition

For more information

https://www.epo.org/applying/european/Guide-for-applicants/html/e/ga_d_vi.html

Copyright © 2018 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

 

Related Insights

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

Reception

12th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala

May 21, 2026

Atlanta

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Virtual Seminar

Patent "Basics" Seminar

May 19, 2026

Virtual

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP