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

The latest in a dispute over juicing machines, and a shakeup in judicial compositions were also among the top developments
Patent partner Robert Hollingshead explains why the firm remains committed to Japan despite several US firms exiting the Japanese and greater Asia market
Emma Green, partner at Bird & Bird, shares why the Iceland v Iceland dispute could prompt businesses and lawyers to think differently about brand enforcement
Attain IP, developed by two UK patent lawyers, will meet ‘forensic’ needs of patent attorneys by showing a verifiable reasoning chain, according to its co-founders
The High Court of Australia has allowed a fashion designer to retain her registered ‘Katie Perry’ trademark for clothing
Sim & San secured the win for Dr. Reddy’s, which will allow the pharma company to manufacture and export semaglutide, the active ingredient in Ozempic
Lucas Amodio joins our ‘Five minutes with’ series to discuss artificial intelligence systems and patent law
The Americas research cycle has commenced, so don't miss the opportunity to submit your work
Practitioners have welcomed extended funding of the specialist police unit until 2029, while the UKIPO says it is exploring increased scale
Abion says integration with Baylos marks an important step in the company’s international expansion plans
Gift this article