AIPLA Submits Comments on the Enlarged Board of Appeal’s 11 Preliminary Opinion in G 1/25

Arlington, VA. April 17, 2026 – The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments on the Enlarged Board of Appeal’s 11 March 2026 preliminary opinion in G 1/25, addressing whether patent descriptions must be adapted following claim amendments.

AIPLA emphasizes that no EPC provision—including Articles 52–56, 83, 84, or 123(2)—requires systematic adaptation of the description. AIPLA supports the Board’s analytical framework and urges it to confirm that inconsistencies between claims and the description are not, by themselves, violations of the European Patent Convention (EPC), but only matter where they result in non-compliance with a specific EPC provision.

The submission cautions that mandatory adaptation introduces legal and practical risks, including added matter and the loss of disclosure relevant to claim interpretation and equivalents, particularly in national courts and the Unified Patent Court. Instead, AIPLA stresses that inconsistencies should be resolved through claim interpretation, consistent with G 1/24, by a skilled person reading the claims in light of the description.

AIPLA ultimately recommends that the Enlarged Board clarify that:

• Inconsistencies do not constitute EPC non-compliance unless they render claims unclear;
• The analysis should be from the perspective of a skilled person willing to understand;
• Remedies should generally focus on amending the claims, not the description; and
• Article 69 EPC does not impose a procedural obligation to adapt the description