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

A decision on a licensing rate payable by Warner Bros and Paramount, and a survey outlining UK businesses’ lack of IP preparation ahead of launching abroad, were among other major talking points
A fresh wave of deals highlights why investors favour IP firms and why independent outfits may soon have to rethink their strategy
King & Spalding has now hired 15 partners from Winston Taylor and legacy firm Winston & Strawn in offices spanning Texas, San Francisco, and Chicago
Firm says its work with a biotech client could signal a sea change in how - and when - law firms enter the drug development process
Evan Lazerowitz, attorney in Robinson + Cole’s bankruptcy and reorganisation group, offers key takeaways for IP interested parties in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings
While the UK sees heavy IP rankings movement, Germany’s new tiered UPC table signals a shift from early adoption to market maturity
In an exclusive interview, Bernard Ledeboer reveals how a Consolid-backed group of firms wants to expand across Europe, invest in AI and centralise operations to compete at the top tier
Not all private equity firms are the same, so leaders at four externally backed IP firms came together to discuss the frameworks they followed and how they ensured a cultural fit
Top-tier German and Spanish firms are among the advisers on a Europe-wide copyright and licensing tussle concerning the design of the track circuit in Madrid
Partners Alex Wilson and Andreas Kramer say bigger law firm rivals don’t necessarily gain by having a wider jurisdictional reach
Gift this article