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

Leaders at two Brazilian law firms outline strategies to adjust to trademark fee changes at Brazil's IP office while urging clients to apply before September 20
Former in-house counsel Andriana Shultz Daly has returned to the firm with client-side insight and courtroom skills to build the firm’s life sciences practice
The LMG Life Sciences Awards announces the 2025 winners for the 13th annual awards!
News of AI company Cerence accusing Apple of patent infringement and a hiring update from Lewis Silkin were also among the top talking points
The addition of BH EVS as a licensee enhances the outreach of the Qi pool, which now licenses nearly half of the global auto supplier market
Only a few international law firms have made a mark in Australia’s IP market, but Rouse entering the field could be a sign of changing times
Caroline Casalonga reflects on her journey as the French firm’s first female leader and shares her dream of building the outfit into a major European independent IP practice
Firm says the hire of Laura Ramsay will help consolidate its position as a ‘market leader’ for premium IP work
CEO Martyn Fish reflects on the past as HGF celebrates its 30th anniversary and discusses how PE investment has helped the firm’s people and clients
The 105-year-old IP firm Wrays and related business Aperture Insight will join Rouse but operate independently
Gift this article