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 firm is continuing its aggressive IP hiring streak with the addition of partner Matthew Rizzolo
Pantech counsel Shogo Matsunaga speaks exclusively to Managing IP about how his team proved Google’s unwillingness, and ultimately secured a landmark SEP settlement
New partners, including the firm’s first female head of a department, are eyeing a deeper focus on client understanding
Chunguang Hu of China PAT explains why his ‘insider’ experience as a patent examiner benefits clients and why he wants to debunk the myth that IP has limited value in China
Essenese Obhan shares his expansion plans and vision of creating a ‘one-stop shop’ for clients after Indian firms Obhan & Associates and Mason & Associates joined forces
From AI and the UPC to troublesome trademarks in China, experts name the IP trends likely to dominate 2026
Colm Murphy says he is keen to help clients navigate cross-border IP challenges in Europe
With 2025 behind us, US practitioners sit down with Managing IP to discuss the major IP moments from the year and what to expect in 2026
Large-scale transatlantic mergers will give US entities a strong foothold at the UPC, and could spark further fragmentation of European patent practices
This year’s most-read stories covered uncertainty at the USPTO, a potential boycott of a major international IP conference, rankings releases, and a contempt of court proceeding
Gift this article