G1/24 – Interpreting how the EPO interprets claims
G1/24 is a decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) following a referral from the Technical Board of Appeal in case T 439/22. The referral for T 439/22 dates back to 24 June 2024, with proceedings before the Enlarged Board of Appeals starting on 28 March 2025. The Enlarged Board’s decision was issued on 18 June 2025.
G1/24 focuses on the scope of the claims of European Patent Application No. 14806330.8 (in the name of Philip Morris Products S.A.) relating to a vaping device, and more specifically, to the scope of the term “gathered sheet”, that was used in the claims. The question to be answered was whether the term “gathered sheet” should be interpreted as a well-known term in the industry/field, instead of according to the broader definition that was provided in the description. The Patent Proprietor-Respondent argued for the narrower interpretation of the term, while the Appellant-Opponent (Yunnan Tobacco International Co. Ltd.) argued that the term lacked novelty using the broader definition set out in the description.
Three questions were referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The first question related to the applicability of Article 69 EPC when interpreting claims for patentability. The second question related to the role of the description when a claim is not clear or ambiguous. The third and final question related to how claims are to be interpreted (i.e., can the ‘conventional’ meaning of a term invalidate the definition set out in the description). The Enlarged Board of Appeal provided answers to the first two questions in their decision.
In response to the first question, the Enlarged Board of Appeal decided that neither Article 69 EPC and Article 1 of the Protocol on the Interpretation of that Article, nor Article 84 EPC are “entirely satisfactory” as a basis for claim interpretation when assessing patentability. The Enlarged Board of Appeal also recognised that case law has developed with a consistent approach where the claims are interpreted using the description and drawings for patentability purposes, and that this practice will remain.
For the second question, it was determined that the description and drawings must always be consulted when interpreting claims for patentability. This must be done regardless of whether the claim is considered to be clear or ambiguous, and the Enlarged Board thus rejected the corpus of case law of the Boards of Appeal following that line.
The Enlarged Board of Appeal declared the third question to be inadmissible. This was because the Board considered this question to be answered by their answer to the second question.
It is noteworthy that the Enlarged Board not only paid due attention to the practice of national courts of the EPC states, but also to the practice of the relatively new Unified Patent Court.
The answers and decision provided will have effects on those practicing before the EPO. The decision provides a clear understanding of how claims are to be interpreted at the EPO. It also means that terms within claims will be assessed to have a scope commensurate with that which is disclosed in the description, and Examiners may require Applicants to narrow the terms in the claims to bring them in line with the description of the application. This will likely increase the number of clarity objections that are raised by Examiners, but it will ultimately ensure that claims are assessed in a more consistent manner.
One area which was not addressed by the decision is the EPO’s requirement that inconsistency between the description and the claims must be avoided, which often results in Examining Divisions amending the description at the allowance stage, to exclude certain embodiments as falling within the scope of the claims. Notwithstanding the recent Technical Board of Appeal decision T 56/21, which stated that there is no legal basis for requiring that the description be adapted to match allowable claims of more limited subject-matter, the EPO’s Guidelines have not been amended. Since this Enlarged Board decision places increased emphasis on the description, it is unlikely that EPO will change its approach in this matter in the near future.
For further questions, feel free to contact our attorneys at:
london@maucherjenkins.com
