EPO: Enlarged Board confirms old disclaimer practice

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

EPO: Enlarged Board confirms old disclaimer practice

The EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) recently issued its long-awaited decision G 1/16 relating to undisclosed disclaimers. The decision lays down under which circumstances the introduction during prosecution of a patent application before the EPO of a disclaimer not disclosed in the application as filed may be allowable under Article 123(2) EPC. The decision essentially confirms the standard defined in decision G 1/03 of 2004.

Decision G 1/16 is the third EBA decision dealing with disclaimers. In decision G 1/03 of 2004, the EBA ruled that an undisclosed disclaimer may be allowable, in spite of support in the application as filed, to restore novelty over prior art cited under Article 54(3) EPC (i.e. a prior European patent application not published at the filing date of the application under examination), to restore novelty over an "accidental" anticipation, or to remove subject-matter excluded from patentability for non-technical reasons.

Later on, in 2011, the EBA scrutinized the allowability of disclaimers which do in fact have a basis in the application as filed. In the decision dealing with that issue, G 2/10 of 2011, the EBA arrived at the conclusion that a disclosed disclaimer is allowed only if the subject-matter remaining in the claim after the introduction of the disclaimer is directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed. It did, however, remain unclear whether or not this standard should apply also to undisclosed disclaimers.

The uncertainty to this effect has now been removed by decision G 1/16, according to which the "directly and unambiguously derivable" criterion – the so-called "gold standard" – does not apply to undisclosed disclaimers. Rather, the EBA expressly endorses the practice developed in decision G 1/03, whilst underlining that an undisclosed disclaimer may not provide a technical contribution, notably in relation to the assessment of inventive step or for the question of sufficiency of disclosure.

frederiksen.jpg

Jakob Pade Frederiksen


Inspicos P/SKogle Allé 2DK-2970 HoersholmCopenhagen, DenmarkTel: +45 7070 2422Fax: +45 7070 2423info@inspicos.comwww.inspicos.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The Indian government announcing a fee waiver for sports-related IP registrations, and the US adding the EU to its IP 'watch list' were also among major developments
Sources say the judge could return to a disputes or mediation-focussed role, though others have questioned whether the Texas court will remain a litigation hotspot in his absence
Sheppard, which has hired 14 IP partners in the last 12 months, has cited client demand for expert counsel in SEP, ITC, and district court disputes
Tingxi Huo joins our ‘Five minutes with’ series to discuss boosting the value of clients’ IP and the importance of reflection
Hefty legal teams assembled for a three-day hearing in what was the court’s first foray into SEPs since Unwired Planet v Huawei
IP firm's new base will be located inside the tallest office space in the UK's ‘second city’
Practitioners at four firms across Asia and Europe share the do’s and don’ts of mindful networking ahead of the INTA Annual Meeting
Brand Action explains why the IP community can be a force for good in the world as thousands of professionals prepare to head to London for INTA’s Annual Meeting
The firm, which has also hired a senior trademark leader to lead operations in the region, believes greater China to be one of the most important IP jurisdictions
Attorneys at Gibson Dunn share why plaintiffs’ growing reliance on DMCA anti-circumvention claims in AI scraping cases exposes a critical vulnerability
Gift this article