According to the order, adaptation is required only where an inconsistency introduced by a claim amendment results in non-compliance with specific provisions of the EPC, including Articles 52-57, 76(1), 83, 84, 123(2), or 123(3) EPC. The decision G 1/25 holds that the EPC does not impose a general requirement of purely formal concordance between claims and description. An inconsistency is not problematic merely because it exists. Rather, the inconsistency must have a legal consequence under the EPC before adaptation becomes necessary.

The decision also builds upon the Enlarged Board’s earlier claim interpretation ruling in G 1/24. The Board confirms that the description and drawings must always be consulted when interpreting claims. At the same time, this does not mean that every embodiment falling outside the amended claims must automatically be deleted or relabeled. The relevant question is whether the remaining disclosure creates a legal deficiency under the EPC.

From a practical perspective, G 1/25 is likely to reduce disputes over extensive “description clean-up” exercises during prosecution and opposition. The focus of a discussion on description adaptation should be on the actual legal effect of an inconsistency rather than on achieving textual perfection throughout the specification.

A takeaway for patent practitioners is: following a claim amendment, the description should be reviewed with a view to substantive EPC compliance rather than formal consistency. G 1/25 introduces a more nuanced framework for description adaptation while reaffirming the continuing importance of the description for claim interpretation.

Der Beitrag EPO G 1/25 erschien zuerst auf meier ip.

The approach is also remarkably cost-effective. Official fees are low, there are no claim fees, and there are no page fees. This enables applicants to pursue extensive claim sets without significant additional official costs, making utility models particularly attractive for enforcement-driven claim drafting.

A recent example is Emboline’s successful assertion of German utility model DE 20 2016 009 224 against AorticLab before the Munich Regional Court (21 O 1255/25), which was covered in this Juve Patent article. The utility model was branched off with 111 claims, and the court found infringement of at least some asserted claims, resulting in injunctive relief and related remedies.

Perhaps the most important advantage is the flexibility available when branching off from a granted patent. The utility model proprietor is not limited to the scope of the granted patent claims. Instead, the full disclosure of the earlier application can be used as a basis for new claims. This allows patentees to develop claim sets tailored (within the boundaries of the original disclosure) to specific infringement scenarios. The Emboline case illustrates how this flexibility can translate into tangible enforcement advantages and serves as a reminder that utility models deserve a place in every German patent enforcement strategy.

Der Beitrag Utility Models as an Enforcement Tool erschien zuerst auf meier ip.

However, as is often the case with deliberately concise Enlarged Board rulings, G 1/24 settled the principle without fully articulating its operational boundaries. A new referral G 1/26 (T 873/24, “Coated steel strips”) seeks clarity on how the principles of G 1/24 are to be applied in practice.

In the patent considered in T 873/24, a compositional parameter (“ratio of titanium to nitrogen in excess of 3.42”) is recited in general terms in the claims, while the description consistently discloses the ratio on a weight basis. The decisive question is whether the skilled person, interpreting the claim in light of the description, would read this limitation into the claim, or whether the broader interpretation must be retained for the purposes of assessing added subject-matter.

Pending the outcome of G 1/26, practitioners face a number of practical challenges. At the drafting stage, strict discipline in the use of consistent terminology will become even more critical. During both prosecution and opposition proceedings, amendment strategies must account for the possibility that the Enlarged Board may conclude that G 1/24 does not justify construing a generic claim term narrowly on the basis of the description when assessing conformity with Article 123(2) EPC.

In this context, it is noteworthy that, with regard to clarity under Article 84 EPC, the Enlarged Board stated in point 20 of G 1/24 that any lack of clarity must, in principle, be addressed by amendment. A comparable line of reasoning would be consistent in the context of Article 123(2) EPC, although this question now squarely falls within the scope of the pending referral.

Der Beitrag Referral G 1/26 erschien zuerst auf meier ip.

Munich is one of Europe’s leading centers for innovation and intellectual property. This status becomes strikingly visible from the town hall tower, where both the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA) and the European Patent Office (EPO) can be seen in close proximity.

Their geographical closeness reflects the strong interaction between national and European patent systems. The DPMA stands for technical rigor, reliable procedures, and a long tradition in protecting intellectual property in Germany. The EPO, in turn, sets internationally recognized standards through its high-quality search and examination practice and its deep technical expertise.

Der Beitrag A Unique View of Munich’s Patent Landscape erschien zuerst auf meier ip.

A playful journey through the DPMA’s DEPATISnet database reveals more than a century of patents dedicated to egg-laying Easter bunnies. As early as 1894, inventors patented mechanical toy hares equipped with hidden channels, spring-loaded magazines, rotating drums, and cleverly actuated flaps that dispense eggs, sweets, or coins on command. Later filings added synchronized ear-wiggling, continuous egg output, automated collection cycles, and even devices for cooking, coloring, labeling, and decorating eggs.

The Easter Bunny, it turns out, is less a zoological anomaly than a triumph of inventive engineering. Sometimes, the best answers really are hidden in patent claims.

Der Beitrag How Does the Easter Bunny Lay Eggs? Ask the DPMA erschien zuerst auf meier ip.

A prominent position is articulated in the open letter by Bardehle Pagenberg, which argues that uneven case distribution is neither surprising nor problematic. According to this view, concentration is a market‑driven outcome reflecting litigants’ preferences for experienced courts and predictable procedures—patterns that already existed in pre‑UPC national litigation. Regulatory intervention, the authors warn, risks undermining party autonomy and the system’s early success.

Other stakeholders adopt a more cautious stance. The UPC Advisory Committee has explicitly invited observer organisations to analyse the reasons for the imbalance and to consider whether measures encouraging a broader geographic spread may be warranted. EPLAW has clarified that it has not endorsed any corrective measures but is merely collecting member input for the Advisory Committee’s deliberations.

Academic and policy commentary highlights a deeper concern: sustained concentration in historically dominant venues may shape procedural expectations and litigation culture in ways that gradually narrow effective choice, even without formal constraints. From this perspective, the debate is less about caseload management than about the long‑term legitimacy of a “truly European” patent judiciary.

More comprehensive reviews of the discussion can be found on ipfray, Juve patent, and the Kluwer Patent Blog.

Der Beitrag Uneven Distribution of UPC Cases erschien zuerst auf meier ip.

When the 31‑month deadline for European phase entry falls on or after 1 April 2026, simply paying the fees before that date may not be sufficient because the EPO does not start processing a Euro-PCT application before the 31-month time limit (Rule 159(1) EPC) has expired.

To ensure that the lower pre‑increase fees remain applicable, applicants should consider submitting a request for early processing under Article 23(2) or 40(2) PCT. Only when such a request is filed on or before 31 March 2026 will the EPO process the entry early, allowing the lower fees to apply. Applicants with PCT applications approaching the end of the international phase should therefore review their timelines carefully and, where appropriate, file a request for early processing to avoid unintended exposure to higher fees.

Der Beitrag Euro-PCTs and EPO fee increase erschien zuerst auf meier ip.

As of 1 October 2025, the EPO permits the electronic filing and processing of drawings in color and grayscale. This change, set out in the Decision of the President (OJ EPO 2025, A49) and the accompanying Notice (OJ EPO 2025, A57), represents a departure from the long‑standing requirement that drawings be submitted exclusively in black and white line form. The new framework provides applicants with greater flexibility in the preparation of visual disclosures, particularly in areas where colour conveys technical information that cannot readily be expressed through conventional monochrome illustrations.

The EPO processes the color drawings throughout the Office’s internal workflows. This includes their extraction and preparation for deposit with the WIPO Digital Access Service. Practitioners should be aware, however, that downstream Offices may apply their own technical constraints when retrieving documents via WIPO DAS. Where an accessing Office does not yet support the processing of colour drawings, it may convert such documents to black and white as part of its intake procedure.

Applicants relying on color to convey essential technical content are therefore advised to consider whether jurisdictions of interest can accommodate such material without loss of information.

Der Beitrag Color drawings and WIPO DAS erschien zuerst auf meier ip.

Der Beitrag Search and Examination Matters 2026 erschien zuerst auf meier ip.

Under the new version of § 5 ERVDPMAV, electronic documents will be considered delivered on the fourth day after being made available for retrieval, provided the user has consented to digital delivery and understands its legal implications. The DPMA is in the process of updating the DPMAdirektPro terms of use accordingly. Users must grant consent for document delivery and provide an email address for notifications. Without these steps, access to electronic document delivery will not be possible after the regulation takes effect.

Der Beitrag Upcoming Changes to DPMAdirektPro erschien zuerst auf meier ip.