EPO: Enlarged Board confirms old disclaimer practice

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

A copyright win for AI firm Anthropic and a new executive order against law firm Jenner & Block were also among the top talking points this week
A principal at Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner explains how AI tools, including DeepIP, can position the firm to help clients
The firm explains why AI-empowered data analytics could make it a more efficient advocate for its clients
Penelope Aspinall, of IP wellbeing charity Jonathan’s Voice, explains why managers should take a three-tiered approach to looking after workers’ mental health
Heath Hoglund talks about the value proposition of patent pools and why it went ahead with its first-ever series of pool meetings in China
Ryan Richardson, Chris O’Brien, and Jean Selep of Sterne Kessler analyse the treatment of SEPs at the UPC and ITC and highlight why SEP holders and implementers should be mindful of current developments in both forums
A ruling concerning the UPC’s jurisdiction, questions over costs transparency, and a missed deadline by Amazon were among the top talking points this fortnight
Exclusive data and analysis reveal how firms can differentiate themselves when it comes to costs and value
The Berlin office will mark the firm’s fourth German base and tenth overall
As we build up to another busy year for the IP STARS rankings and Managing IP Awards, we give a rundown of some of the major IP firms and trends in the UK
Gift this article