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 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 new transatlantic firm under the name of Winston Taylor is expected to go live in May 2026, and is likely to have a significant impact on Europe’s IP market
Geoff Steward and Rebecca Newman of Addleshaw Goddard explain how they secured victory in a rare ‘genericide’ case and why the work went beyond the courtroom
Nancy Frandsen looks back on her career, from answering a paralegal advert to expanding RCCB’s ‘entrepreneurial’ IP practice as a partner
The tie-up could result in the firm’s German and France-based teams, which both have strong UPC expertise, becoming independent
News of a slowdown in the UK’s clean energy IP landscape and an EPO report on unitary patent uptake were also among the top talking points
Price hikes at ‘big law’ firms are pushing some clients toward boutiques that offer predictable fees, specialised expertise, and a model built around prioritising IP
The Australian side, in particular, can benefit by capitalising on its independent status to bring in more work from Western countries while still working with its former Chinese partner
Koen Bijvank of Brinkhof and Johannes Heselberger of Bardehle Pagenberg discuss the Amgen v Sanofi case and why it will be cited frequently
View the official winners of the 2025 Social Impact EMEA Awards
King & Wood Mallesons will break into two entities, 14 years after a merger between a Chinese and an Australian firm created the combined outfit
Gift this article