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 2024

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

A UK government consultation on AI and copyright, a patent blow for Lenovo and a trademark row over cider were among the big talking points this week
Our most popular stories of the year included a rundown of the 50 most influential people in IP, our in-house ones to watch, and UPC news
Awards
It is time to submit nominations for the sixth annual Life Sciences Awards EMEA
Keejeong Kim, who returned to Yulchon after a four-year gap, said he was intrigued by the opportunity to work on neighbouring areas of law to IP
The IP consulting firm hopes to expand its services and outreach with the support of investors VSS Capital Partners and Century Equity Partners
This update includes a ruling from the Court of Appeal, a judgment of the Paris Local Division, news of upcoming hearings, and predictions for 2025
US counsel review the key copyright and trademark trends of 2024, including generative AI disputes and SCOTUS cases
If 2024 is anything to go by, the next 12 months could see more IP firms seek investment opportunities while IP lawyers are increasingly likely to work alongside other functions
Practitioners reflect on the impact of USPTO guidance, as well as PTAB and litigation trends
We discuss Managing IP’s 50 most influential people in IP list and look back on the biggest talking points in the last month
Gift this article