Legal Evaluation of Each Statement
PCT-1 was filed in Japanese and, on entry into the European phase, an English translation was filed. During EPO examination, the applicant discovers a translation error and requests correction.
The EPC contains a specific rule for this situation: Article 14(2) EPC, second sentence provides that throughout the proceedings before the EPO, a translation filed for an application originally filed in another language may be brought into conformity with the application as filed.
This mechanism is confirmed and operationalised in the Guidelines: any error in the translation filed can be corrected at any time during proceedings before the EPO, by bringing the translation into conformity with the originally filed text (e.g. Japanese). The Guidelines also state that this applies similarly to Euro-PCT translations filed on entry into the European phase.
For Euro-PCT applications, Article 153(2) EPC provides that the international application is deemed to be a European patent application; EPO case law confirms that the Art. 14(2) translation-conformity mechanism is applicable in this setting.
Legal Evaluation of Each Statement
a) The correction can only be made if it is immediately evident from the English translation as filed upon entry into the European phase. — False
“Immediately evident” is the hallmark condition for corrections of errors in documents under the general correction regime (e.g. Rule 139 EPC), where both the error and the correction must be immediately evident.
But here the applicant is not using Rule 139 as the basis; the request concerns a translation correction governed by Art. 14(2) EPC, which allows bringing the translation into conformity with the application as filed—without conditioning the correction on being “immediately evident” from the translation itself.
b) The correction can be made if it has a basis in the Japanese text as originally filed at the Japanese Patent Office. — True
Yes. The whole point of Art. 14(2) EPC is that the translation may be aligned with the original language filing (“application as filed”). If the correct term is supported by the Japanese original, the English translation can be corrected accordingly during proceedings before the EPO.
c) A wrongly translated term in a European patent application can always be replaced by the correct term given in the priority document. — False
The benchmark for translation correction is the application as filed in the original language (here: the Japanese PCT filing), not the priority document. The Guidelines explain translation correction as “bringing the translation into conformity with the application as filed in the original language”.
So a priority document cannot be used as an “always available” reservoir to replace terms—especially if it differs from the actual application as filed.
d) The correction cannot be made because PCT-1 was not filed in an official language of a Contracting State of the European Patent Organisation. — False
Art. 14(2) EPC expressly contemplates filing “in any other language” (i.e. not an EPO official language) and then filing a translation; it then provides that the translation may be brought into conformity throughout proceedings.
Japanese is therefore not a barrier. Moreover, for a Euro-PCT, the application is treated as a European application under Art. 153(2) EPC, and translation correction principles apply similarly.
Exam Tip:
When you see “wrong translation” in a Euro-PCT:
- Use Art. 14(2) EPC (2nd sentence): correct the translation by aligning it with the original language text as filed.
- Don’t import the Rule 139 “immediately evident” test unless you are truly correcting a document error under Rule 139 rather than aligning a translation under Art. 14(2).
- Don’t rely on the priority document as the basis for translation correction; the anchor is the application as filed.
Legal Disclaimer
The information provided in this post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This content should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances. For advice related to any specific legal matters, you should consult a qualified attorney.