US style single-dependency habits can bite you in Europe. In T 1164/23, the Board of Appeal found claim 1 unallowable for added matter because it combined features from original claims 2, 3 and 6, each only dependent on claim 1. The description disclosed those features only within an embodiment that also included further elements.
Dropping those further features created an intermediate generalisation. And “these features cumulatively contribute” or “a skilled person would combine them” was not enough; you still need an unambiguous disclosure of the specific combination in the originally filed application.
This probably goes further. Likely, lack of basis for multiple dependency will result in the same objections when multiple dependency is introduced before filing a subsequent EP or PCT application.
What you can do, practically:
1. Draft with two tracks in mind. Prepare a European-style set with multiple dependencies at the priority stage, then adapt to single dependency for the USPTO if needed. Multiple dependencies must be present when you file in Europe, and you can only rely on them if your priority application(s) provide a clear basis. You cannot bolt them on at EP regional phase if the PCT entered after the priority year.
2. Draft the U.S. priority so it explicitly supports the multiple-dependent combinations the EPO will accept (and mirror those pairings in the description) for example by adding clauses, or by restating key fallback combinations with explicit cross-references in the description.
3. Use the Dutch route. File first in the U.S., then file a Dutch application shortly after with multiple-dependent claims and request an EPO search. You can then claim priority from both filings. As a bonus, you typically receive the European search report within the priority year, giving time to address all objections raised in the search opinion before filing EP or PCT.
If you want a pragmatic approach for structuring claims and description so Europe works the first time, let’s connect.
