The aim of these articles is to keep our Clients and Associates updated about developments in the sector of Intellectual Property in general and our firm in particular. In this way, we wish to provide a broader view of the tools that the field of trade marks, domain names, patents, designs and related rights offers to entrepreneurs to enhance and protect their efforts in researching and developing new solutions and ideas.
A breakthrough in Patent Interpretation: Decision G 0001/24 of the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal Redefines the Criteria for Reading Claims
On 18 June 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office issued one of the most anticipated and significant decisions of recent years in the field of European patent law: Decision G 0001/24.
This ruling, which originates from the referral made by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal in Case T 0439/22 between Philip Morris Products S.A. and Yunnan Tobacco International Co., Ltd., addresses and clarifies a crucial issue for patentability examination: the interpretation of claims.
The Central Issue: How to Read the Claims?
According to Art. 69(1) EPC, the claims define the extent of the protection conferred by a European patent, but the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims. National courts as well as the Unified Patent Court (UPC) typically adopt said principle in patent infringement and nullity actions.
However, the EPO, in assessing the patentability of an application or the validity of a patent, has taken conflicting positions on this issue over the years, with some decisions based on an interpretation of the claims alone, resorting to the description and drawings only in cases of ambiguity or lack of clarity of the claims, and other decisions in which, instead, the claims have been interpreted on the basis of the description and drawings.
Decision G 0001/24 clarifies this sensitive issue, establishing that description and drawings must always be taken into account when interpreting claims, regardless of the apparent clarity of the claims.
This breakthrough is intended to ensure greater consistency in the EPO's approach and uniformity between said approach and that of the national courts and UPC operating downstream of the EPO.
Key Principles Established by the Decision
The Enlarged Board of Appeal ruled that:
- The interpretation of the claims cannot disregard the overall context of the patent, not only when assessing the scope of patent protection (Article 69 EPC and corresponding Protocol of Interpretation) but also when assessing the patentability of the claims.
- Description and drawings are indispensable interpretive tools, even when the wording of the claims appears clear.
Conclusions
Decision G 0001/24 by the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal is not just a technical clarification: it is a paradigm shift. Anyone who wants to protect an invention in Europe will now have to pay more attention to the integrated drafting of claims, description and drawings. Above all, it will be essential to rely on qualified professionals who can draft solid, coherent patent applications that are ready to face successful examination and possible judicial challenges.
In an increasingly demanding patent system, the competence of the patent attorney is not an option, but a necessity.