News
Claims first, but not alone: EPO clarifies patentability interpretation
18 June 2025
On 18 June 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal issued a decision in the case G 1/24. The decision confirms that while claims are the foundation for assessing patentability, the description and drawings must always be consulted—regardless of clarity or ambiguity of the claimed terms.
The referral in G 1/24 arose from a dispute over whether the term “gathered sheet” in a patent for a vaping device should be interpreted in isolation or in light of the description. As outlined in our earlier article (The G1/24 Referral: What to Expect and Why It Matters – Withers & Rogers), this case highlighted diverging approaches within European patent practice on the role of the description when interpreting claim language while assessing patentability (e.g., when assessing the novelty and inventiveness of the claimed features).
The decision in G 1/24 resolves a long-standing interpretative divide at the European Patent Office (EPO) and moves towards harmonisation of EPO practice with those of European national court and the Unified Patent Court (UPC). The Enlarged Board of Appeal emphasised that it would be a “most unattractive proposition” for the EPO to adopt a practice contrary to that of European national courts and the UPC, which ultimately adjudicate the patents that the EPO grants.
This outcome provides greater clarity for Applicants filing at the EPO. It should be considered carefully when drafting patent applications which will be prosecuted in Europe, as any terms given in the description will be read onto corresponding terms in the claims and could impact the patentability of the claims.
Bradley Wilson
Life Sciences & Chemistry group
This publication is a general summary of the law. It should not replace legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.
© Withers & Rogers LLP June 2025
