G 1/24 Decision Brings Clarity to Claim Interpretation at the EPO

On 18th June 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) of the European Patent Office issued its long-awaited decision in case G 1/24.  #

The EBA decided that description and drawings shall always be consulted to interpret the claims when assessing the patentability of an invention under Articles 52 to 57 EPC, and not only if the person skilled in the art finds a claim to be unclear or ambiguous when read in isolation. This ruling harmonises the EPO’s approach with that of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and national European courts.

Whilst there has been significant commentary since the decision, here, we focus on how G 1/24 will impact day-to-day prosecution strategy, claim drafting, and risk management, offering practical guidance for navigating the EPO’s more integrated interpretive framework.

Key findings from the EBA #

The EBA held that Article 69 EPC and its Protocol apply not only to determining the extent of protection in post-grant proceedings, but also to assessing patentability during prosecution and opposition. This confirms that the description and drawings, shall be considered even if the claim language is not ambiguous. The Board has thereby moved away from earlier case law that applied the principle of the primacy of the claims by interpreting claims in isolation unless their wording was unclear.

The decision declares a more holistic approach to claim construction and brings the EPO’s practice in closer alignment with the UPC, where descriptions and drawings are often considered when assessing the scope of claims. Crucially, this ruling creates a more consistent European framework and approach to claim interpretations. 

The implications #

• Claims must always be interpreted in light of the description and drawings, not just when the claim language is unclear or ambiguous. This marks a departure from the more restrictive “claims-only” approach and aligns EPO practice with that of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and many national courts, especially in Germany.
• The Enlarged Board explicitly stated that it would be “a most unattractive proposition that the EPO deliberately adopt a contrary practice” to the UPC and national courts, emphasising the need for harmonisation and uniformity in claim interpretation across Europe.
• The decision enhances predictability and coherence for patentees and third parties, as the scope of patent protection determined by the EPO is now more likely to match how national courts and the UPC will interpret those claims in infringement and validity disputes.
• The ruling has practical consequences for patent drafting and prosecution:
  • Applicants must ensure tight alignment between claims and descriptions; inconsistencies may limit claim scope or trigger objections under Article 123(2) EPC for added subject matter.
  • Examiners may apply greater scrutiny, and third-party challenges could increase, especially regarding discrepancies between claims and descriptions.
  • There is a renewed emphasis on high-quality examination of claim clarity (Article 84 EPC), and the correct response to any clarity objection would appear to be amendment, not reliance on the description to resolve ambiguities.

Considerations for applicants #

In view of this decision emphasising the importance of the description in interpreting claims, extra attention should be paid when defining a claim term in the description, irrespective of whether the claim term may be considered clear to the skilled reader. A claim defined too broadly in the description may render a claim not novel during examination or opposition proceedings. On the other hand, a claim term defined too narrowly in the description limits the extent of protection conferred by the term in a subsequent patent.

Applicants, along with their Patent Attorney, may wish to review pending applications to identify and correct potential issues in the description that could affect claim interpretation. This includes clarifying terminology, tightening definitions, and ensuring that the description does not contradict or undermine the scope of the claims. Vague, overly broad, or generic language in the description should be avoided, as it could lead to interpretive uncertainty.

Looking ahead #

G 1/24 provides welcome clarity and greater legal certainty by establishing a consistent standard for claim interpretation across the EPO, UPC, and national courts. It eliminates the risk of conflicting interpretations and supports a more predictable and transparent European patent system. However, it also places greater responsibility on applicants and representatives to ensure that the complete specification is drafted with care and precision.

As this decision begins to influence examination and opposition practice, patent stakeholders will need to take proactive steps to adapt their drafting, review existing cases for risk, and ensure their specifications meet the new standard. This marks a significant shift in European patent law, but one that brings greater coherence and reliability to the system as a whole. Nobody likes uncertainty, and for this reason G1/24 brings much-welcomed consistency and clarity to how claims should be interpreted at the European Patent Office.

Need support navigating G 1/24? #

Our experienced European patent attorneys are here to help you review your existing applications, adjust your drafting strategies, and ensure your specifications align with the EPO’s clarified approach. Get in touch with us today to discuss how this decision may impact your portfolio.