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

Cookies Settings

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

After months of speculation over his next move, former Texas patent judge Alan Albright has found a new home at the firm’s Austin office
Law firms can now participate in the research for the Managing IP Awards and IP STARS rankings
The firm has hired former Norton Rose Fulbright patent prosecution leader Ronak Kalhor-Witzel as it seeks to strengthen its position in high-value technology, UPC and international patent matters
The Dutch division is cementing its position as the UPC's primary alternative to Germany, with a consistent share of filings and growing market influence
Angela Dunning shares why it’s an exciting time to be practising at the intersection of AI and IP, where the law is actively being made
Junior lawyers aren’t unwilling to work hard, as some seniors believe; rather, they are rejecting traditional career advancement models that have limited payoff
Rebekah Gay discusses overcoming self-doubt, supporting the next generation of women lawyers, and how changing client demands are reshaping IP practice
New filing data suggests Germany's grip on UPC litigation remains strong, while Bardehle Pagenberg, Arnold Ruess, Hogan Lovells and Carpmaels notch up notable cases
In 27 years, KASS has expanded to seven countries in southeast Asia and is now eyeing further growth opportunities. Its CEO shares her perspective
Mine Güner discusses bridging law and business, taking the initiative, and why Taylor Swift helped put copyright on the map
Gift this article