Are your claims aligned with G 1/24?

Decision G 1/24 is one of the most significant rulings in European patent law in the last decade. H&A help you comply with the EPO’s new approach.

G 1/24 focuses on a key question:

How much weight should the description of a patent application carry when interpreting the claims?

On June 18, 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) issued its decision in case G 0001/24—a ruling with far-reaching implications for how European patent claims are interpreted.

This decision directly affects:

• What can be patented.
• How patents are interpreted in infringement or revocation proceedings.
• Legal certainty for all parties: inventors, companies, attorneys, judges, and more.

The full text of the June 18, 2025 decision is available via the link we provide here.
The core principle of the decision is clear: claims must always be interpreted in light of the description and drawings, and not only when the wording of the claims is ambiguous or unclear (see paragraph 18 of the aforementioned text).

Background:

Decision G 1/24 arose from a referral by a Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO concerning the interpretation of claims in European patents. The referral addressed a divergence in EPO case law regarding the extent to which the description should be used to interpret the claims. Specifically, it questioned whether the description should be used only when claims are unclear or ambiguous, or whether it may also redefine common terms known from the prior art.

G 1/24 establishes an important, though indirect, relationship with Article 69 of the European Patent Convention (EPC) and its Protocol on Interpretation. These have traditionally been applied in the context of infringement, but not during patent examination. Article 69 EPC states that the extent of the protection conferred by a European patent shall be determined by the claims, interpreted in light of the description and drawings. The Protocol on Interpretation aims to strike a balance between a strictly literal and an overly broad or flexible interpretation. Until now, the interpretation of Article 69 and the Protocol has been reserved for national courts and the Unified Patent Court (UPC); i.e., judicial disputes.

However, in G 1/24, the Enlarged Board of Appeal clarifies that although Article 69 is not the legal basis for claim interpretation during the examination phase (i.e., pre-grant), its underlying principles must be applied consistently throughout the entire patent lifecycle.

Implications:

In summary, Decision G 1/24:

• Affirms that the description and drawings must be used to interpret the claims, even if the claims are clear on their face. Claims remain the starting point and the basis for assessing patentability. Therefore, consistency between the description and the claims is now more important than ever.
• Seeks to avoid inconsistencies between the scope of protection of a patent and the way claims are interpreted to assess patentability. We can expect a shift in examination practices, with EPO examiners likely to analyze claims with greater attention to the context provided by the description. Any amendments to the description during examination will need to be made even more carefully, as inadequate adjustments may quickly lead to issues under Article 123(2) EPC.
• Is relevant for post-grant opposition proceedings and potentially for pre-grant examination procedures as well. Third parties, such as competitors, will gain new grounds for challenge if they identify inconsistencies between the description and the claims.

The EPO is expected to update its Guidelines for Examination in 2026 to reflect this decision. In the meantime, this legal doctrine is already applicable and must be considered in new applications, oppositions, and portfolio reviews.

If you would like to assess how this decision may affect your choice to protect an invention in Europe or how it may impact your patent portfolio and R&D strategy, don’t hesitate to contact H&A and our Patent team to review your key documents or adapt future applications.