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

Tatiana Campello reflects on 30 years of practising at the firm, and urges women IP attorneys to think beyond the day-to-day
A David v Goliath battle involving TikTok, and Via Licensing Alliance adding new members to its Voice Codec patent pool, were also among the top talking points
Latham & Watkins bolstered its IP litigation bench in California with the addition of Kieran Kieckhefer, as partner demand for trial-ready expertise shows no sign of slowing
With the launch of a new patent eligibility AI tool, Sterne Kessler is leading a growing movement of law firms taking AI development into their own hands
UPC cases are (very) gradually becoming more distributed across other local divisions outside Germany, which can only be good news for the pan-European forum
Clarification concerning jurisdictional reach and latest stats released by the court were also among the top talking points in recent weeks
Although unanimous decision by the top court clarifies several aspects of the honest concurrent use defence, practitioners say ambiguities remain
Tristan Sherliker says he hopes to solve an access to justice issue by making the automated court bundle tool free to use
The team, comprising two partners and one senior consultant, plans to offer “highly differentiated” services to clients
HGF’s new ownership model frees it from the hiring constraints of traditional partnerships, its CEO told Managing IP
Gift this article