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

Stephen Yang joins us for our ‘Five minutes with’ series to explain why his role requires him to wear many hats
The complaint follows a declaratory ruling issued by the England and Wales High Court last month that said Samsung is entitled to an interim licence
Tobias Hahn explains how the firm's multi-jurisdictional setup enabled it to secure an injunction on behalf of Fujifilm relating to defendant Kodak’s non-UPC activity
Reckitt Benckiser is to divest its Essential Home business, which includes more than 70 brands, to private equity firm Advent International
Litigator Neel Chatterjee, who has joined the firm as a co-leader of the IP team, reveals tech ambitions and expansion plans
A settlement between Philips and Transsion and a loss for AstraZeneca in the UK were also among the top talking points
Working with Harvey and Microsoft, the firm has been at the forefront of developing AI tools for its lawyers, and is now exploring new projects and business models
The Emotional Perception AI case, which centres on the patentability of an artificial neural network, will be heard next week
Developments included a court order related to InterDigital’s anti-anti-suit injunction against Disney, and clarification on recoverable costs
Partners at Foley Hoag examine how recent CJEU jurisprudence may serve as a catalyst for recalibrating US judicial reluctance to entertain foreign patent claims
Gift this article