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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Scott Palmer, who took 16 lawyers with him when he moved from Perkins Coie to Loeb & Loeb last year, reveals how his Beijing-based team has hit the ground running
Coke Morgan Stewart previously spent 10 years in various USPTO roles before joining O’Melveny in 2023
Law firm Stephens Scown secured victory for its client in a dispute over two cider products
The Court of Appeal said the UPC can award damages based on a national court’s infringement ruling, giving the last laugh to the lawyer who filed the case
AI
Robert Guthrie at Osborne Clarke runs through the government’s AI and copyright consultation and considers the expected challenges
A lawyer firing Meta as a client has reinforced why the industry should not shy away from losing business from those with questionable ethical standards, even if it comes at a cost
A blow for Getty ahead of its AI showdown with Stability AI and a licensing deal between Nokia and Samsung were among the big talking points this week
The IP Federation has written to the UPC Court of Appeal’s presiding judge ahead of a crucial decision on whether in-house lawyers and attorneys can represent their employers in litigation
A Boies Schiller Flexner partner explains how he helped toy company Tangle prevail in a copyright case concerning a kinetic sculpture
Awards
Submit your nominations for this year's WIBL Americas Awards by February 28
Gift this article