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

After five IP partners left the firm for White & Case, the IP market could yet see more laterals
The court plans to introduce a system for expert-led SEP mediation, intended to help parties come to an agreement within three sessions
Paul Chapman and Robert Lind, who are retiring from Marks & Clerk after 30-year careers, discuss workplace loyalty, client care, and why we should be optimistic but cautious about AI
Brantsandpatents is seeking to boost its expertise across key IP services in the Benelux region
Shwetasree Majumder, managing partner of Fidus Law Chambers, discusses fighting gender bias and why her firm is building a strong AI and tech expertise
Hady Khawand, founder of AÏP Genius, discusses creating an AI-powered IP platform, and why, with the law evolving faster than ever, adaptability is key
UK firm Shakespeare Martineau, which secured victory for the Triton shower brand at the Court of Appeal, explains how it navigated a tricky test regarding patent claim scopes
The firm’s managing partner said the city is an ‘exciting hub of ideas and innovation’
In our latest podcast, Deborah Hampton talks through her hopes for the year, INTA’s patent focus, London 2026, and her love of music
Tech leads at three IP service groups discuss why firms need to move away from off-the-shelf AI products and adopt custom solutions
Gift this article