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

IP specialists Jonathan Moss and Jessie Bowhill, who worked on cases concerning bitcoin, Ed Sheeran, and the Getty v Stability AI dispute, received the KC nod
Hannah Brown, an active AIPPI member, argues that DEI commitments must be backed up with actions, not just words
A ruling in the Kodak v Fujifilm dispute and a win for Google were among the major recent developments
Nick Aries and Elizabeth Louca at Bird & Bird unpick the legal questions raised by a very public social media spat concerning the ‘Brooklyn Beckham’ trademark
Michael Conway, who joined Birketts after nearly two decades at an IP boutique, says he was intrigued by the challenge of joining a general practice firm
The private-equity-backed firm said hires from DLA Piper and Eversheds Sutherland will help it become the IP partner of choice for innovative businesses
The acquisition is expected to help Clorox bolster its position in the health and hygiene consumer products market
AIPPI, which has faced boycott threats over the 2027 World Congress, says it has a long-standing commitment to engagement and geographic rotation
The shortlist for our annual Americas Awards will be published next month, with potential winners in more than 90 categories set to be revealed
News of Nokia signing a licensing deal with a Chinese automaker and Linklaters appointing a new head of tech and IP were also among the top talking points
Gift this article