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

Counsel at five US firms explain how they get less experienced attorneys ready for conducting oral arguments
Tesla and Avanci’s FRAND battle, a boost for UK artists concerning royalty payments and lawyer moves involving White & Case and Fieldfisher were among the top talking points
Finnegan partners outline how the firm determines whether AI tools are safe to use and if they are a worthwhile investment
Bill Braunlin was drawn to the firm because of its work with start-ups and universities, as well as its employees’ industry experience
Melissa Anyetei discusses how she’s building her practice and reveals the challenges of working at a larger firm
Lawyers at Aksoy IP discuss why a delay in implementing a new procedure for cancelling trademarks in Türkiye is causing a headache for practitioners
Private equity firms explain how external funding and expertise can help IP firms and reveal what they look for before investing
Our latest UPC update covers first-instance decisions, upcoming hearings, and other significant developments
Managing IP goes behind the scenes to uncover what happens when setting up an SEP licensing programme for electric vehicle chargers, and discovers why law firms play a crucial role
Exclusive data and in-house analysis show that law firms are able to respond quickly when engaging with in-house clients but struggle to make the grade when it comes to the quality of their answers
Gift this article