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

As concerns around the little-known litigation tool increase, practitioners say they are educating their clients on how it can be most effective
Kilburn & Strode and Mewburn Ellis are just two firms that have invested heavily in office space – a sign that the legal industry is serious about in-person working
In major recent developments, Dyson snagged another win against Hong Kong-based competitor Dreame and a new AI-powered UPC platform was launched
Mohit and Sidhant Goel decided not to pursue an interim injunction application so that their client, Communications Components Antenna, could benefit from a fast-track trial
Anita Cade, head of Ashurst’s IP and media team in Australia, discusses why law firms that can pull together capability across different practice areas and jurisdictions stand to gain
INTA’s CEO says London-based firms have registered fewer delegates compared to past meetings in San Diego and Atlanta, and questions the 'ethics' of trying to participate without registering
Lobbies and interest groups are among the interveners in a major dispute over whether courts can set patent pool rates
Benoit Geurts and Coreena Brinck will help the firm ‘accelerate its innovation agenda’, according to its managing partner
News of a trademark row over Taylor Swift’s ‘The Life of a Showgirl’ and Nokia’s expansion of its IoT licensing programme were also among the top talking points
IP attorneys share how the Cox v Sony ruling impacts their counselling strategies, and if the case could influence how courts may assess liability for AI platforms
Gift this article