[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-663835-105":59,"doc-detail-663835-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","maiinsight-issue-no-8-october-2026-g125","MAIinsight - Issue No. 8 - October 2026 - G1/25","","MAIinsight Issue No. 8 (October 2026) explains Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G1/25 of 3 September 2026 in European patent practice. It addresses whether, after claim amendments create inconsistency with the description (including drawings), the description must be adapted to remove that inconsistency under the EPC. The text sets out prior EPO practice and contested legal bases, reviews the relevance of G1/24 to claim interpretation, presents the three referred questions, and summarizes the consolidated answer and reasoning on legal significance and EPC non-compliance.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":20,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/maiinsight-issue-no-8-october-2026-g125/663835/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/maiinsight-issue-no-8-october-2026-g125/663835.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"The UK Girl","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-10-29",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":8},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What legal question does decision G1/25 address?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"G1/25 addresses whether, after claim amendments introduce inconsistency between the amended claims and the description (including drawings), the EPC requires adapting the description to remove that inconsistency.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How does G1/25 treat earlier case-law lines on description adaptation?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"G1/25 clarifies that the second line of case law denying a legal basis for mandatory adaptation is not endorsed, while adopting a more moderate position than both extremes.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Does G1/25 require adaptation whenever an inconsistency exists?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"No. The necessity to adapt the description or drawings arises only when the inconsistency has legal significance, leading to non-compliance with an EPC requirement; an inconsistency with no such effect does not require adaptation.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},663835,1793232645,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":19,"category_name":20,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":8,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":24,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":143},2199028711991,"https://us-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","MAIinsight | Issue No. 8 | October 2026 G1/25  \nHave you read G1/25  \nyet?  \nCome on, it is not that bad. G1/25 basically says: if the description actually confuses the claim interpretation, fix it. If it merely contains extra stuff, leave it alone.  \nTrue. But at  \nleast now  \nwe can say:»Show me the EPC problem.«  \nYes. I had just started to understand G1/24, and now the Enlarged Board gives us the next episode.  \nThat sounds reasonable. But I can already hear an Examiner saying: »This paragraph gives me a feeling of inconsistency.« And then my afternoon is gone.  \nFine. I’ll print that on a mug for the next Rule 71(3)  \ncommunication.  \n30  \nMAIinsight | Issue No. 8 | October 2026 G1/25 31  \nG1/25  \nThe answer to all questions?  \nThe Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision G1/25 of 3 September 2026 addresses a question that has become increasingly important in European patent practice: when claims are amended, must the description be adapted to match them?  \nFor years, EPO practice has often required applicants and proprietors to amend the description after claim amendments. In many cases, this meant deleting or relabeling embodiments no longer covered by the claims. The practice was familiar, but its legal basis was controversial. Sometimes, reference was made to Article 84 EPC to argue that the description had to be brought into line with the claims. Sometimes, to the contrary, it was held that if the claims were clear in themselves, the EPC did not require adaptation of the description merely because it contained unclaimed embodiments.  \nG1/25 provides clarification and, in doing so, avoids both extremes and adopts a more moderate position.  \nLegal background  \nThe long-discussed question underlying G1/25 is what,  \nif any, the legal basis for the necessity of an adaptation of the description is under the EPC. The Board of  \nAppeal identified, in decision T 697/22 underlying G1/25, two lines of case law: The first line of case law considers  \nthat the adaptation of the description to amended claims is necessitated by the requirements of the EPC (see also VII of G1/25) . The second line of case law denies a legal basis for mandatory description adaptation and holds that Article 84 only concerns the claims, so that clarity is to be assessed without reference to the description (see also VIII to  \nImpact of G1/24  \nG1/25 discusses the relevance of G1/24 to the question of adapting the description after claim amendments in detail (in Reasons 4 to 12) . Specifically, according to G1/24, the description and drawings must always be consulted when interpreting the claims – not only when the claim wording appears unclear or ambiguous. Claim interpretation is a holistic process, in line with T 439/22, implementing G1/24 . The meaning of the claim is to be determined from the perspective of the skilled person, taking the whole patent or application into account. In doing so, however, the description and drawings cannot be used to give the claim scope a limitation or an expansion for which there is no basis in the claim wording. In line with this, if the description  \ncontains a definition of a term in the claim, the skilled  \nXVII of G1/25, and in particular T 56/21) .  \nThe EnBoA clarifies in G1/25 (Reasons 27 to 32) that the second line of case law is not endorsed. In particular in view of G1/24, the »interpretative role of the description« shall not be excluded.  \nperson will normally apply that definition, as long as it is technically reasonable and consistent with the overall teaching.  \nHence, in short, after G1/24, the description and drawings are always part of claim interpretation, and this is the basis for the reasoning in G1/25 .  \nThe questions referred  \nThree questions were referred to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EnBoA), namely:  \nQuestion 1:  \nIf the claims ofa European patent are amended during opposition proceedings or opposition-appeal proceedings, and the amendment introduces an inconsistency between the amended cl","cbCaiuedwELuYseV","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiuedwELuYseV","pdf",205474,"English","# Legal background\n## Impact of G1/24\n## The questions referred\n## The EnBoA’s answers","[{\"question\":\"What legal question does decision G1/25 address?\",\"answer\":\"G1/25 addresses whether, after claim amendments introduce inconsistency between the amended claims and the description (including drawings), the EPC requires adapting the description to remove that inconsistency.\"},{\"question\":\"How does G1/25 treat earlier case-law lines on description adaptation?\",\"answer\":\"G1/25 clarifies that the second line of case law denying a legal basis for mandatory adaptation is not endorsed, while adopting a more moderate position than both extremes.\"},{\"question\":\"Does G1/25 require adaptation whenever an inconsistency exists?\",\"answer\":\"No. The necessity to adapt the description or drawings arises only when the inconsistency has legal significance, leading to non-compliance with an EPC requirement; an inconsistency with no such effect does not require adaptation.\"}]","MAIinsight - Issue No. 8 - October 2026 - G1/25 | PDF",13]