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

Licensing chief Patrik Hammarén also reveals that the company will rename its IPR business to better reflect its role in defining standards
The acquisition of Pecher & Partners follows the firm’s earlier expansion into litigation to create a ‘one-stop shop’
News of Via Licensing Alliance launching its first semiconductor patent pool and INTA electing a new president were also among the top talking points
Submit your nominations to this year's WIBL Americas Awards by January 23
The 2026 Life Sciences EMEA Awards is now open for entries. We are looking forward to reviewing and celebrating the industry's most impressive achievements and landmarks from the past year.
The tie-up between Perkins Coie and Ashurst may generate some striking numbers, but independent IP firms need not worry yet, according to practitioners
Perkins Coie’s US patent prosecution strength could provide Ashurst with an opportunity to enter an untapped market in Australia, but it may not be easy
Mitesh Patel at Reed Smith outlines why the US Copyright Office and courts have so far dismissed AI authorship and how inventors can protect AI-generated works
Xia Zheng, founder of AFD China, discusses balancing legal work with BD, new approaches to complex challenges, and the dangers of ‘over-optimism’
A dispute involving semiconductor technology and a partner's move from Hoffman Eitle to Hoyng Rokh Monegier were also among the top talking points
Gift this article