{"id":12647,"date":"2026-09-24T18:02:12","date_gmt":"2026-09-24T16:02:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/?p=12647"},"modified":"2026-09-24T18:02:12","modified_gmt":"2026-09-24T16:02:12","slug":"new-decision-from-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-clarifies-the-requirements-for-adapting-the-description","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/new-decision-from-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-clarifies-the-requirements-for-adapting-the-description\/","title":{"rendered":"New Decision from the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal Clarifies the Requirements for Adapting the Description"},"content":{"rendered":"

The decision issued on 3 September in G 1\/25<\/u><\/a> (1) addresses the role of the description and drawings in claim interpretation. It clarifies and supplements the principles established in G 1\/24,<\/u><\/a> issued in 2025. According to G 1\/25, the description does not have to be systematically adapted to the claims: only inconsistencies that result in non-compliance with a requirement of the EPC must be removed.<\/p>\n

The questions addressed in G 1\/24 and G 1\/25<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

In G 1\/24, the Enlarged Board held that the description and drawings must always be consulted when interpreting the claims for the purpose of assessing patentability under Articles 52 to 57 EPC<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n

The referral arose from a case concerning the interpretation of a term used in a claim<\/b> that could be given two different meanings: either its usual meaning in the relevant technical field<\/b> or the definition provided by the patent proprietor in the description<\/b>. When given the broader interpretation, the claim lacked novelty.<\/p>\n

In G 1\/25, the Enlarged Board was asked to consider a case in which an amendment to a claim feature during the proceedings had introduced an inconsistency<\/b> with the definition of that feature in the description.<\/p>\n

Key principles established in G 1\/25<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

As a preliminary point, the Enlarged Board defined the circumstances in which an \u201cinconsistency\u201d exists, since this term is not defined in the EPC.<\/p>\n

According to the Enlarged Board, an inconsistency exists where two conditions are met: one or more statements in the description, including any drawings, suggest an understanding of a claim that is incompatible with the apparent meaning of the claim<\/b>, and that incompatibility cannot readily be resolved<\/b> by interpreting the application as a whole in accordance with the principles established in G 1\/24 (2).<\/p>\n

The decisive test<\/b> is whether the person skilled in the art is left in \u201creal doubt\u201d <\/b>as to the meaning of the claim when it is read in the light of the description and any drawings. If the skilled person remains uncertain as to whether information, examples, embodiments or a technical teaching in the description fall within the scope of the claim, an inconsistency exists.<\/p>\n

However, an inconsistency is not established merely because the description contains information, examples, embodiments or technical teachings that no longer fall within the claimed subject-matter.<\/p>\n

An inconsistency must be removed where it results in non-compliance with a requirement of the EPC.<\/b> Conversely, where the inconsistency has no such legal effect, it does not have to be removed or neutralised: the EPC does not require purely formal concordance between the claims and the remainder of the application.<\/p>\n

Building on decision G 1\/24 (3), the Enlarged Board confirmed that Article 84 EPC<\/u><\/a> lays down requirements for the claims. It nevertheless made clear that compliance with those requirements must be assessed by taking the description and drawings into account.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the skilled person may interpret a term used in a claim in accordance with a definition found in the description, provided that the definition is \u201ctechnically reasonable\u201d and complies with the overall teaching of the claims, description and drawings.<\/b><\/p>\n

Scope of G 1\/25<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

First, an inconsistency must be removed where it results in non-compliance with a requirement of the EPC<\/b>. This may concern the requirements of Articles 52 to 57<\/u><\/a>, 76<\/u><\/a>, 83<\/u><\/a>, 84<\/u><\/a>, 123 <\/u><\/a>EPC.<\/p>\n

Second, the stage of the proceedings <\/b>is immaterial. There is no reason to distinguish between examination proceedings, opposition proceedings and the corresponding appeal proceedings.<\/p>\n

Finally, the Enlarged Board formally limited the scope of its ruling to inconsistencies introduced by amendments to the claims<\/b>, while acknowledging that similar issues may arise where the claims have not been amended.<\/p>\n

Practical implications<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

When a claim is limited, it should no longer be mandatory to delete every embodiment that falls outside the resulting claim scope. Unclaimed subject-matter disclosed in the description<\/b> may remain, provided that its presence does not create real doubt as to the meaning of the claims.<\/p>\n

Particular care should nevertheless be taken when adapting the description<\/b>, since amendments to the description may indirectly affect the meaning attributed to the claims.<\/p>\n

The mere fact that an example in the description is no longer covered by the amended claims no longer appears sufficient, in itself, to require adaptation of the description. Such adaptation now appears to require a finding that the discrepancy leaves the skilled person in real doubt as to the meaning of the claim and that it results in non-compliance with a requirement of the EPC.<\/p>\n

The Enlarged Board also observed, in obiter remarks, that in appeal proceedings the description is almost always finalised during the oral proceedings before the Board. It considered that adapting the description while the appeal proceedings are still pending is generally more efficient than remitting the case to the department of first instance for that purpose.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Decision G 1\/25 confirms that the EPC does not impose a general obligation to adapt the description and drawings to amended claims. Adaptation is required, however, where reading the application as a whole leaves the skilled person in real doubt and the resulting inconsistency leads to non-compliance with a requirement of the EPC.<\/p>\n

Following this decision, it may be hoped that EPO examiners will be less inclined to introduce amendments into the text intended for grant. This should simplify both the review of that text and any subsequent discussions with the Examining Division.<\/p>\n

It will also be interesting to see how this decision influences claim interpretation under Article 69 EPC<\/u><\/a> by national courts and the Unified Patent Court.<\/p>\n

\n

1 \u2014 EPO, Enlarged Board of Appeal, 3 September 2026, G 1\/25, Hydroponics, ECLI:EP:BA:2026.20260903.<\/i><\/p>\n

2 \u2014 The second condition follows from the principles established in decision G 1\/24.<\/i><\/p>\n

3 \u2014 \u201c\u2026the claims shall be clear and concise and be supported by the description.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The decision issued on 3 September in G 1\/25 (1) addresses the role of the description and drawings in claim interpretation. It clarifies and supplements the principles established in G 1\/24, issued in 2025. According to G 1\/25, the description does not have to be systematically adapted to the claims: only inconsistencies that result in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","_members_access_role":[],"_members_access_error":""},"categories":[206],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12647","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ip-news"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nNew Decision from the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal Clarifies the Requirements for Adapting the Description - BDL<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/new-decision-from-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-clarifies-the-requirements-for-adapting-the-description\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"New Decision from the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal Clarifies the Requirements for Adapting the Description - BDL\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The decision issued on 3 September in G 1\/25 (1) addresses the role of the description and drawings in claim interpretation. It clarifies and supplements the principles established in G 1\/24, issued in 2025. According to G 1\/25, the description does not have to be systematically adapted to the claims: only inconsistencies that result in […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/new-decision-from-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-clarifies-the-requirements-for-adapting-the-description\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"BDL\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-09-24T16:02:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/bg-hero10.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1366\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"480\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"adm-bdl\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"adm-bdl\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bdl-ip.com\\\/en\\\/new-decision-from-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-clarifies-the-requirements-for-adapting-the-description\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bdl-ip.com\\\/en\\\/new-decision-from-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-clarifies-the-requirements-for-adapting-the-description\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"adm-bdl\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bdl-ip.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/49791463b136dcd0ba2792015bd1d159\"},\"headline\":\"New Decision from the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal Clarifies the Requirements for Adapting the Description\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-24T16:02:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bdl-ip.com\\\/en\\\/new-decision-from-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-clarifies-the-requirements-for-adapting-the-description\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":937,\"articleSection\":[\"IP NEWS\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bdl-ip.com\\\/en\\\/new-decision-from-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-clarifies-the-requirements-for-adapting-the-description\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bdl-ip.com\\\/en\\\/new-decision-from-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-clarifies-the-requirements-for-adapting-the-description\\\/\",\"name\":\"New Decision from the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal Clarifies the Requirements for Adapting the Description - BDL\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bdl-ip.com\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-24T16:02:12+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bdl-ip.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/49791463b136dcd0ba2792015bd1d159\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bdl-ip.com\\\/en\\\/new-decision-from-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-clarifies-the-requirements-for-adapting-the-description\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bdl-ip.com\\\/en\\\/new-decision-from-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-clarifies-the-requirements-for-adapting-the-description\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bdl-ip.com\\\/en\\\/new-decision-from-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-clarifies-the-requirements-for-adapting-the-description\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bdl-ip.com\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"New Decision from the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal Clarifies the Requirements for Adapting the Description\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bdl-ip.com\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bdl-ip.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"BDL\",\"description\":\"Un site utilisant WordPress\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bdl-ip.com\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bdl-ip.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/49791463b136dcd0ba2792015bd1d159\",\"name\":\"adm-bdl\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/939382c24f608c82daf1a778542f77d26f1809bbcd119007d5cd89180d7687ce?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/939382c24f608c82daf1a778542f77d26f1809bbcd119007d5cd89180d7687ce?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/939382c24f608c82daf1a778542f77d26f1809bbcd119007d5cd89180d7687ce?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"adm-bdl\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.bdl-ip.com\\\/en\\\/author\\\/adm-bdl\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"New Decision from the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal Clarifies the Requirements for Adapting the Description - BDL","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/new-decision-from-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-clarifies-the-requirements-for-adapting-the-description\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"New Decision from the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal Clarifies the Requirements for Adapting the Description - BDL","og_description":"The decision issued on 3 September in G 1\/25 (1) addresses the role of the description and drawings in claim interpretation. It clarifies and supplements the principles established in G 1\/24, issued in 2025. According to G 1\/25, the description does not have to be systematically adapted to the claims: only inconsistencies that result in […]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/new-decision-from-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-clarifies-the-requirements-for-adapting-the-description\/","og_site_name":"BDL","article_published_time":"2026-09-24T16:02:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1366,"height":480,"url":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/bg-hero10.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"adm-bdl","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"adm-bdl","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/new-decision-from-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-clarifies-the-requirements-for-adapting-the-description\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/new-decision-from-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-clarifies-the-requirements-for-adapting-the-description\/"},"author":{"name":"adm-bdl","@id":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/49791463b136dcd0ba2792015bd1d159"},"headline":"New Decision from the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal Clarifies the Requirements for Adapting the Description","datePublished":"2026-09-24T16:02:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/new-decision-from-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-clarifies-the-requirements-for-adapting-the-description\/"},"wordCount":937,"articleSection":["IP NEWS"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/new-decision-from-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-clarifies-the-requirements-for-adapting-the-description\/","url":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/new-decision-from-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-clarifies-the-requirements-for-adapting-the-description\/","name":"New Decision from the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal Clarifies the Requirements for Adapting the Description - BDL","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-09-24T16:02:12+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/49791463b136dcd0ba2792015bd1d159"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/new-decision-from-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-clarifies-the-requirements-for-adapting-the-description\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/new-decision-from-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-clarifies-the-requirements-for-adapting-the-description\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/new-decision-from-the-epo-enlarged-board-of-appeal-clarifies-the-requirements-for-adapting-the-description\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"New Decision from the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal Clarifies the Requirements for Adapting the Description"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/","name":"BDL","description":"Un site utilisant WordPress","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/49791463b136dcd0ba2792015bd1d159","name":"adm-bdl","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/939382c24f608c82daf1a778542f77d26f1809bbcd119007d5cd89180d7687ce?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/939382c24f608c82daf1a778542f77d26f1809bbcd119007d5cd89180d7687ce?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/939382c24f608c82daf1a778542f77d26f1809bbcd119007d5cd89180d7687ce?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"adm-bdl"},"url":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/author\/adm-bdl\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12647","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12647"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12647\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12649,"href":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12647\/revisions\/12649"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12647"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12647"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bdl-ip.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12647"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}