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

Daniel Tarr explains why returning to his former firm could help him establish his personal brand, and predicts what’s on the horizon for AI litigation
A call to reinstate the European Commission's controversial SEP proposal and a trademark row involving Stanley cups were also among the top talking points
Susman Godfrey and Polsinelli secured victory for power systems manufacturer Vicor at the US International Trade Commission
Longi’s actions against JinkoSolar are the latest in a growing number of patent infringement disputes involving solar technology
Former solo practitioner Merlyne Jean-Louis explains why she moved to the newly formed Pierson Ferdinand, which operates as a virtual firm
With the India IP office headquarters moving from Mumbai to Delhi, forum shoppers and firms in the capital could benefit
David Stone, a highly influential figure at legacy firm Allen & Overy, has joined White & Case in what is a major move early in 2025
While business has been tough, foreign law firms with IP practices that have decided to stay put in China reveal why they are optimistic
Managing IP will host a ceremony in London on April 10 to reveal the winners of the EMEA Awards 2025
The Intellectual Property Judges' Association wrote to the European Commission just days before the proposals were shelved, it can be revealed
Gift this article