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 finding Google liable for trademark infringement and the launch of a new IP services group were also among the top talking points
Law firms across the world are seemingly united in their reluctance to give juniors a chance, which shouldn’t be the case
In-house counsel say they want more visibility for the next generation of lawyers, but private practice practitioners believe jurisdictional challenges stand in their way
IP STARS, Managing IP’s accreditation title, reveals this year’s first rankings, showing how firms in Asia-Pacific are performing across a range of practice areas
A dispute over buggies, a decision on the UPC’s jurisdiction, and the formal launch of the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre were among the top developments
Sofie McPherson says she is excited to work at a firm that offers an integrated approach between attorneys and litigators
Personality rights are among several measures the government must take to maximise the potential of the music licensing market, say lawyers
Pascal Faure, director general of INPI, explains why keeping a cool head is key, and discusses plans to leverage IP assets to secure funding
Lawyers at Carpmaels & Ransford explain how the healthcare sector has not simply participated in the UPC’s early years, but actively shaped it
The firm has hired former in-house counsel Quintin Cassady to lead the launch of the new office
Gift this article