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 2026

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

Public figures are turning to trademark protection to combat the threat of AI deepfakes and are monetising their brand through licensing deals, a trend that law firms are keen to capitalise on
News of Avanci Video signing its first video licence and a win for patent innovators in Australia were also among the top talking points
Tom Melsheimer, part of a nine-partner team to join King & Spalding from Winston & Strawn, says the move reflects Texas’s appeal as a venue for high-stakes patent litigation
AI patents and dairy trademarks are at the centre of two judgments to be handed down next week
Jennifer Che explains how taking on the managing director role at her firm has offered a new perspective, and why Hong Kong is seeing a life sciences boom
AG Barr acquires drinks makers Fentimans and Frobishers, in deals worth more than £50m in total
Tarun Khurana at Khurana & Khurana says corporates must take the lead if patent filing activity is to truly translate into innovation
Michael Moore, head of legal at Glean AI, discusses how in-house IP teams can use AI while protecting enforceability
Counsel for SEP owners and implementers are keeping an eye on the case, which could help shape patent enforcement strategy for years to come
Jacob Schroeder explains how he and his team secured victory for Promptu in a long-running patent infringement battle with Comcast
Gift this article