Keywords: patents, European Patent Office (EPO), description, claims, Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA), G1/24, claim interpretation

Headline

G 1/24: A practical reset for claim interpretation at the EPO

A fundamental shift, now what?

Last year, the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) reset how patent claims are interpreted at the EPO. For decades, the prevailing approach treated claims as largely self-contained. In G 1/24, the EBA moved the dial: the description and drawings must always be consulted when interpreting claims for patentability.

That is a material change. It affects how you draft, prosecute, and defend European patents day to day. But as with any landmark ruling, the decision sets the direction. The detail is emerging through subsequent cases.

This note distils what matters now, and what to do about it.

The core questions

Two issues have driven debate for years:

1. Should claims be interpreted with reference to the description when assessing patentability?

2. Should the description always be amended to align with the claims?

G 1/24 answers the first. The second is now under separate review in G 1/25.

What G 1/24 actually says

No single legal hook, but a clear practice

· Article 69 EPC governs extent of protection, not patentability.

· Article 84 EPC governs clarity and support, not interpretation rules.

· There is no explicit EPC provision that dictates claim interpretation for patentability.

But in practice:

· Claims must be read with the description and drawings, always.

· Not only when claims are unclear. Not only in edge cases. Always.

Implication: claim meaning is no longer assessed in isolation. The full disclosure is in play.

The case that triggered it

In T 0439/22, the claim referred to a “gathered sheet”.

· Opponent: read with the description, “gathered” is broader → no novelty.

· Patentee: apply the usual meaning in the art → novelty preserved.

Outcome after G 1/24: The EBA relied on the definition in the description. The term was interpreted more broadly. The claim lacked novelty.

Key point: if you define a term in the description, the EPO will treat that as deliberate, and use it.

Early signals from the Boards of Appeal

Post-G 1/24 decisions show how this plays out in practice:

· Consulting the description does not mean rewriting the claim.

· Embodiments do not automatically limit claim scope.

· Clear claim language still leads.

· Definitions matter, but only if they are clear, relevant, and truly definitional.

In short: the description informs interpretation. It does not routinely override it.

What “always consult” means in practice

This is where nuance matters.

When definitions are explicit and general: They will carry weight, especially if they broaden or clarify a term beyond common usage.

When the description shows examples or embodiments: These should not be used to narrow the claim unless the claim language supports it.

When there is conflict (description vs common general knowledge): Risk escalates quickly, clarity, sufficiency, and added matter can all come into play.

Bottom line: context decides how much influence the description has.

A cautionary example: deleting definitions

In T 0439/22, the patentee tried to fix the problem by deleting the definition of “gathered”.

That created a new issue:

· Removing the definition expanded the claim scope post-grant.

· That triggered the Article 123(2)/(3) trap, an inescapable position.

Lesson: Definitions are not easy to unwind. What helps at drafting stage can harm later.

What this means for you

1) Draft claims to stand on their own

Clarity in the claims is still your first line of defence. Do not rely on the description to rescue weak language.

2) Treat definitions as high-risk, high-impact tools

Before adding one, ask:

· Is the term already well understood in the art?

· Does this definition broaden or narrow the meaning?

· Could it be used against you on novelty or inventive step?

If the answer is unclear, rethink it.

3) Use the description strategically, not defensively

The description should support the claims, not create interpretive ambiguity. Avoid mixing:

· broad “quasi-definitions”

· narrow embodiment language

· inconsistent terminology

That combination invites attack.

4) Be cautious when aligning the description

Until G 1/25 clarifies the position:

· Over-editing the description may create added matter risks

· Under-editing may create interpretation risks

There is no universal rule yet. Each case needs a tailored approach.

A practical working model

Think of claim interpretation now as a controlled system, not a single document:

· Claims: define the boundary

· Description: shapes how that boundary is read

· Drawings: reinforce technical context

Your job is to ensure these elements work together, consistently and deliberately.

The commercial reality

G 1/24 is not a loophole. It is not a fallback. It is a discipline test.

Well-drafted patents will hold up. Loose drafting will be exposed earlier, and more decisively.

That creates both risk and opportunity:

· Risk if your portfolio relies on flexible interpretation

· Opportunity if you draft with precision and intent from the outset

Final word

The direction is clear, even if the edges are not yet settled:

· The EPO will read your patent as a whole

· It will assume your wording is deliberate

· It will use your own description against you if needed

The safest strategy is also the most effective one:

Be precise. Be consistent. Be intentional.

Everything else is harder to fix later.

If you want to pressure-test your drafting approach or adjust prosecution strategy in light of G 1/24, we can work with you discreetly to strengthen the position, before it is tested.