G 1/24: Claim interpretation must consider description and drawings

von Grünecker | 23. Juni 2025 | News

June 18, 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal issued decision G1/24 on interpretation of the claims when determining patentability in proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO). This decision is expected to streamline existing approaches of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO in this respect, which may also lead to diverging decisions by departments of the EPO on the one hand and the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on the other purely by applying different approaches to determine the scope of a Patent and extent of the subject matter protected therewith.
In the case underlying decision G1/24 interpretation of a claim feature with the expert’s general understanding (applied by the patentee) would provide a narrow definition whereas interpretation in light of the description of the patent (applied by the opponent) would lead to a broader definition. On the basis of the narrow definition, the subject matter defined in claim 1 would be novel, whereas it would not when applying the broader definition.

G1/24 confirms that Article 69 (1) 2. Sentence, EPC and the Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 EPC are analogously applicable to the examination of patentability and thus, interpretation of the claims. The headnote of G1/24 confirms that the description and drawings must always be considered when determining the extent of a claim when assessing patentability and rejected existing Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, in which the description and drawings are ignored when construing the claims.

Thus, G1/24 clears the floor of diverging approaches in existing Case Law in this respect. The Enlarged Board of Appeal explicitly dismisses the approach to only take into account the description and the drawings in case of unclarity or ambiguity as being contrary to the concept of Article 69 EPC.

This ruling is to also render EPO’s approach consistent with current Case Law of the UPC, which may need to decide on invalidity of a European Patent, as the case may even be in the process of running simultaneously with the Opposition Proceedings before the EPO or Appeal Proceedings thereto.

You can find the EPO article here.

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren: