以前の記事「UPCはProblem Solution Approachを捨てたか？」ではUPCがこれまでの判決において欧州特許庁が採用するProblem Solution Approachを採用していないことを説明しました。
一方で補正による新規事項の追加についてはUPCはどうも欧州特許庁が採用する悪名高い「Gold Standard」を採用する方向にあるようです（Gold Standardって何？という方は過去の記事「EPOでは新規性を否定するためのハードルが高いです」をご参照ください）。
例えば2024年6月19日のハーグ地方部の判決（UPC_CFI_131/2024）で、判決の段落3.4でハーグ地方部は以下のように述べています。
3.4. Both parties relied on the case law of the (Technical and Enlarged) Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) to substantiate their arguments regarding added matter. They did not indicate whether – and if so in which way – the court should apply a different standard. This court will also apply that long-standing case law, and the court will therefore in particular apply the so-called “gold standard” disclosure test in this context, which is also the standard used in many Contracting Member States of the UPC. Hence, any amendment to the parts of a European patent application or of a European patent relating to the disclosure (the description, claims and drawings) can therefore, irrespective of the context of the amendment made, only be made within the limits of what a skilled person would derive directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, and seen objectively and relative to the date of filing, from the whole of the application(s) as filed. After the amendment, the skilled person may not be presented with new technical information.
このようにハーグ地方部は新規事項の追加の判断について「Gold Standard」以外の手法を用いることができる可能性を残しつつも、「Gold Standard」以外の手法を用いる場合にはなぜ「Gold Standard」以外の手法を用いるべきなのかを示さなければならないことを示唆しています。
またハーグ地方部は同じ判決の段落5.3で以下のように述べています。
5.3. For the intermediate generalization to be considered allowable (in the sense that it does not result in added matter), it should be (clearly) established that there is no structural and functional relationship between the omitted feature and the other features incorporated into the claim.
この「intermediate generalization（中間一般化）」が認められる条件は「Gold Standard」を採用する欧州特許庁の判例（例えばT 1067/97, T 25/03, T 876/05, T 1587/12, T 1561/14, T 2003/14, T 879/18）と同じです。
さらにUPCの別の判決でもGold Standardが採用されています。例えば2024年7月19日のパリ中央部による判決（UPC_CFI_255/2023）で、パリ中央部は判決の段落54で以下のように述べています。
It is worth noting that, pursuant to Articles 76 (1) and 123 (2) ‘EPC’ a European divisional application may only be filed in respect of subject-matter which does not extend beyond the content of the earlier application as filed. Such an extension occurs if the subject-matter cannot be directly and unambiguously deduced from the earlier application by a person skilled in the art. An undue extension may result from an amendment to the claims or the description consisting of an intermediate generalisation, i.e. by extracting one or more isolated Features which, in the initial application, were disclosed only in combination with other features, thereby extending the claimed subject matter, which is no longer limited to this initial combination of features.
この「 extracting one or more isolated Features which, in the initial application, were disclosed only in combination with other features」という「intermediate generalization」の定義は欧州特許庁のガイドラインH-V, 3.2.1に開示された定義と同じです。
このように補正による新規事項の追加に関してはUPCは欧州特許庁の「Gold Standard」を積極的に採用しているように思われます。
コメント