Anyone who takes a European patent application to grant knows the last hurdle: the description has to be adapted to the amended claims. Embodiments no longer covered are deleted or marked as “not according to the invention”, claim-like clauses are removed. That is largely over. With its notice of 10 November 2026, the European Patent Office has implemented decision G 1/25 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of 3 September 2026 in its examination and opposition practice.
What the Enlarged Board decided
Claims are always interpreted in light of the description and drawings, as a whole and not in isolation. The description must be amended only if an inconsistency between the claims and the description means that the application or patent no longer meets a requirement of the EPC – such as clarity and support (Art. 84), patentability (Art. 52 to 57), sufficiency of disclosure (Art. 83) or added matter (Art. 123(2) and (3)).The EPC does not require mere formal concordance. Embodiments that the amended claim no longer covers are not an inconsistency as such. An inconsistency only exists if the skilled person is left in real doubt about what the claim means.
What changes in practice
Examining and opposition divisions will now request amendments only where they can identify such an inconsistency. Claim-like clauses no longer have to be deleted as a matter of routine, and unclaimed examples no longer have to be marked across the board as “not part of the invention”. Where an inconsistency exists, a clarification is often enough instead of a deletion.The notice names no fixed date. As the Enlarged Board interprets the EPC rather than changing it, the new practice also applies in pending examination and opposition proceedings. The Guidelines for Examination will be updated accordingly in the 2027 edition.
What this means for applicants
The examining division may now amend the description in the text intended for grant only where a real inconsistency exists, and it has to identify it. That means fewer amendments in the text for grant, less review effort before grant – and above all less risk of unintentionally giving up scope of protection by a deletion. After all, the description later shapes claim interpretation in court. The reverse also applies: what stays in can be used against the patent in infringement or revocation proceedings, for example advantage statements that contradict the inventive step argument. The description therefore deserves a deliberate look before grant: what supports the claims, and what could do harm later?
We will be happy to check whether a request to adapt the description in your proceedings is still justified under G 1/25 – and which passages you should deliberately keep or change.