G 1/25 Changes EPO Practice on Adaptation of the Description

Case Law | 10.09.2026

G 1/25, the long-awaited decision on adaptation of the description at the EPO, has been issued. The Enlarged Board adopted a middle ground between the current strict blanket requirement for adaptation and the complete abolition of this practice. Adaptation will continue to be required at the EPO, but only if a claim amendment introduces an inconsistency between the amended claims and the description such that the key requirements of the EPC are not fulfilled.

An inconsistency only arises where, after trying to interpret the claims based on the description and drawings, “the person skilled in the art reading the claim in the light of the description and any drawings would be left in real doubt as to the meaning of the claim”. It is not enough that the description “contains a technical teaching, examples, or embodiments that do not fall within the claimed subject-matter”. Furthermore, adaptation is only required if the inconsistency leads to violation of the EPC, e.g. because it casts doubt on the scope of the claims and therefore on whether the claims are supported, or because it suggests the claims are not novel or inventive.

The decision also provides significant extra guidance on claim interpretation, addressing several questions already raised in G 1/26. A holistic approach to claim interpretation is to be taken, from the skilled person's perspective, by considering the claims together with the description and any drawings. Definitions in the description which narrow or broaden the claim terms are to be taken at face value, as long as this is consistent with the specification as a whole and is technically reasonable.

For more information, please see this article by Adam Lacy and Thorsten Bausch.

返回