Adam Lacy

Under Rule 106 EPC, a petition for review by the Enlarged Board (Art. 112a EPC) based on a procedural defect is generally admissible only if the defect was objected to during the appeal proceedings,…

G 1/25, the long-awaited decision on adaptation of the description, was issued today. Adaptation will continue to be required at the EPO, but only if a claim amendment introduces an inconsistency…

This is just a short post on an interesting new development on exceptions to the EPO’s strict approach to admissibility on appeal. T 715/24 reason 2 suggests that claim interpretation is to be…

It is less than a year since the Enlarged Board of Appeal issued the landmark decision G 1/24 on the issue of claim interpretation. Already in this time, a divergence has arisen between the Boards on…

G 1/25 addresses a particularly controversial feature of EPO practice: the requirement to adapt the description. The long-anticipated hearing on G 1/25 took place on 8 May 2026, and unfolded in a…

The preliminary opinion of the Enlarged Board in G 1/25 can be found here. At present, the Enlarged Board seem set to uphold the EPO practice of requiring adaptation of the description, both in…

In J 1/24, Board 3.1.01 (the Legal Board of Appeal) surprised many practitioners by treating a divisional filed after the publication of the mention of the grant as validly filed. As this went…

EPO practice on added matter is well known to be strict, with many patents being revoked using this principle every year. Particularly tricky during EPO opposition proceedings is the “inescapable…

T 1913/21 has received attention for nicely illustrating the difference between process claims and second non-medical use claims —a category of claims shaped by landmark Enlarged Board decisions G 2…