UPC Court of Appeal: Assessing sufficient disclosure

Sufficiency of Disclosure under Art 138 Abs 1 lit i.c.w. Art 83 EPC has to be examined on the basis of the patent as a whole, thus on the basis of the claims, description and drawings, from the perspective of the skilled person with his common general knowledge at the filing or priority date. The test to be applied is whether the skilled person is able to reproduce the claimed subject matter on the basis of the patent without any inventive effort and without undue burden. An invention is sufficiently disclosed if the patent specification shows the skilled person at least one way – and in case of functional features: one technical concept – of performing the claimed invention. Where a claim contains one or more functional features, it is not required that the disclosure includes specific instructions as to how each and every conceivable embodiment within the functional definition(s) should be obtained. A fair protection requires that variants of specifically disclosed embodiments that are equally suitable to achieve the same effect, which could not have been envisaged without the invention, should also be protected by the claim. Consequently, any non-availability of some embodiments of a functionally defined claim is immaterial to sufficiency, as long as the skilled person through the disclosure is able to obtain suitable embodiments within the scope of the claim. A reasonable amount of trial and error does not prevent the invention from being enabled (UPC 25 November 2025;CoA 528/2024;CoA 529/2024).