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

AG Barr acquires drinks makers Fentimans and Frobishers, in deals worth more than £50m in total
Tarun Khurana at Khurana & Khurana says corporates must take the lead if patent filing activity is to truly translate into innovation
Michael Moore, head of legal at Glean AI, discusses how in-house IP teams can use AI while protecting enforceability
Counsel for SEP owners and implementers are keeping an eye on the case, which could help shape patent enforcement strategy for years to come
Jacob Schroeder explains how he and his team secured victory for Promptu in a long-running patent infringement battle with Comcast
After Matthew McConaughey registered trademarks to protect his voice and likeness against AI use, lawyers at Skadden explore the options available for celebrities keen to protect their image
The Via members, represented by Licks Attorneys, target the Chinese company and three local outfits, adding to Brazil’s emergence as a key SEP litigation venue
The firm, which has revealed profits of £990,837, claims it is the disruptive force in the IP-legal industry
In the first of a two-parter, lawyers at Santarelli analyse the patentability of therapeutic inventions where publication of clinical trial protocols occurs before the application's filing date
Arun Hill at Clarivate assesses the Top 100 Global Innovators 2026 list, including why AI has assumed a strategic importance for innovation
Gift this article