On June 18, 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office published its decision in G1/24 (“Heated Aerosol”) – a decision with significant implications for the future interpretation of European patent claims. The guiding principle is clear: claims must always be interpreted in the light of the description and drawings – not only if the wording is unclear (para. 18.).
The EPO is thus fundamentally changing its previous practice and moving closer to the line taken by the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and German courts. The Enlarged Board of Appeal expressly clarifies that an isolated interpretation of the patent claim based purely on the wording – as was advocated in T 169/20, for example – is neither practicable nor desirable.
Starting point: referral T 439/22 – from individual case to system change
The decision was prompted by a referral from the Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.01 (T 439/22). The issue in dispute was whether a definition of a term in the description – in this case the term “gathered sheet” – influences the interpretation of the claim, even if the claim is clearly formulated in terms of language.
The answer of the Enlarged Board of Appeal is clear: Yes, the description must always be used. The “claims-only” approach previously advocated in some cases is now a thing of the past. The EPO is thus committed to a holistic, context-related interpretation – a step towards greater legal certainty and uniformity in Europe.
What does this mean in practice?
The effects for patent applicants and us patent attorneys are immediately noticeable:
– Consistency between description and claims is more important than ever – inconsistencies can have a direct impact on claim interpretation.
– Examination procedures could also change: EPO examiners are likely to analyze claims more in the context of the description in the future.
– Third parties – e.g. competitors – will have new points of attack if the description contains inconsistencies with the claims.
Consequence:
Amendments to the description during examination must be approached with even more care, as inadequate adjustments can quickly lead to problems with Article 123(2) EPC.
Classification in the European context: Alignment with the UPC and national practice
The UPC already follows the now confirmed approach in decisions such as NanoString v. 10x Genomics: Here too, the context of the description is used to interpret the claim – with the aim of achieving a uniform scope of protection in all member states.
German courts also traditionally rely heavily on the description, but often interpret it in light of the technical purpose. The approach is therefore often more function-oriented than the EPO’s previously more text-oriented approach – which can sometimes result in more far-reaching interpretations.
Conclusion:
G1/24 creates a degree of clarity and harmonization here. The decision strengthens harmonization within Europe and improves the predictability of claim interpretation for all parties involved – a welcome step for European patent practice as a whole.
We are pleased to share that our firm Prüfer & Partner together with six of our intellectual property attorneys have been recognized for their outstanding work in patent prosecution and nullity in the newly published 2025 Edition of IAM Patent 1000, one of the world’s leading rankings with regard to patent services providers. We are very proud and honored that our next generation managing partners Dr. Susanne Sonnenhauser and Dr. Christian Gärtner were also listed for the first time.
What the ranking said
Prüfer & Partner
“A reliable firm providing quality patent prosecution advice…appreciated for their responsiveness, cost-effective approach and overall excellent client service.”
Jürgen Feldmeier
“Jürgen Feldmeier is a responsive and highly professional practitioner with a deep understanding of his clients’ technologies. This means he provides careful and accurate opinions, as well as valuable advice on patent applications and portfolio management, and defence strategies that are tailored exactly to his customers’ needs.”
Dr. Dorothea Hofer
“Dorothea Hofer has the ability to understand complex technical matters and provide the appropriate advice. She is a great attorney, capable of dealing with urgent matters through putting together strong teams to tackle important cases.”
Dr. Andreas Oser
“Andreas Oser carefully drafts patent applications and provides helpful advice on handling proceedings at the patent office. He devises cost-efficient strategies, highlighting the risks and challenges of each option, and selecting the most suitable path depending on his clients’ needs.”
Markus Adamczyk
“Markus Adamczyk, a dual-qualified patent attorney and attorney-at-law, sees issues from every angle to dispense valuable holistic counsel. He works seamlessly with his clients to masterfully protect and enforce their rights.”
Dr. Susanne Sonnenhauser
“Susanne Sonnenhauser is adept at working with groundbreaking technologies and companies whose patents are central to their success; unflappable under pressure, she operates with precision and the utmost care at each turn.”
Dr. Christian Gärtner
“Christian Gärtner is an impressive strategist who devotes his practice to achieving meaningful patent protection for his clients. He gets to know their businesses incredibly well and tailors his advice to suit their needs.”
About IAM Patent 1000
The prestigious ranking IAM Patent 1000, published by Globe Business Media Group in London, is commonly regarded as the definitive ‘go-to’ resource for those seeking to identify world-class, private practice patent expertise as well as leading patent service providers. IAM undertook an exhaustive qualitative research project to identify outstanding firms and individuals across multiple jurisdictions. When identifying the leading firms, factors such as depth of knowledge, market presence, and the level of work on which they are typically instructed were all taken into account, as well as positive peer and client feedback.
With Dr. Susanne Sonnenhauser and Dr. Christian Gärtner, two very experienced colleagues from the Prüfer und Partner team are joining the management.
Jürgen Feldmeier, managing partner:
“With Dr. Susanne Sonnenhauser, whom we have known for 16 years as an extremely competent and determined patent attorney and proven life science expert, and with Dr. Christian Gärtner, who started and successfully completed his training as a patent attorney in our firm 10 years ago and is now extremely experienced in bilateral proceedings, we have gained two partners who carry the Prüfer DNA. Today and in the future, they will work conscientiously and ambitiously to meet the needs of our clients.”
We look forward to a successful and inspiring future.
We were deeply shocked to learn of the devastating earthquake in Japan and would like to express our sincere condolences to the victims of this earthquake. In these difficult times, we would like to express our deepest sympathy to you and your fellow human beings.
Our thoughts are with all those affected, their families and friends. May the strength of the community and the support of those around you give you comfort during this difficult time.
Dr. Dorothea Hofer
Jürgen Feldmeier
Dr. Andreas Oser
Dear Sir or Madam,
In view of the digital age, in which documents will only be served electronically in the future, the European Patent Office will abolish its so-called 10-day fiction of service, which previously governed the calculation of time limits, as of November 1, 2023.
With amended Rules 126(2) and 127(2) EPC, the current fiction of service, according to which a document is deemed to have been served on the tenth day after delivery to the postal service provider or – in the case of electronic service – on the tenth day after its transmission (“ten-day rule”), will no longer apply as of November 1, 2023. Instead, a new fiction of service will be introduced, according to which electronic (but also any postal) service will be deemed to have taken place on the date as shown of the document.
The amended service fiction is expected to lead to a simplification for users because it will bring the service rules of the EPC and the PCT more in line with each other.
Do you have any further questions on this topic?
Please contact us, we will be pleased to advise you!
Jürgen Feldmeier, LL.M
我们很高兴地与您分享，在最新公布的2023年版IAM Patent 1000（世界领先的专利服务提供商排名之一）中，我所Prüfer & Partner普律丰和我们的四位知识产权律师因其在专利申请和无效方面的杰出工作而金榜题名。
排名说明
Prüfer & Partner普律丰律师事务所
“Prüfer & Partner的律师在同行中脱颖而出，因为他们对客户的立场考虑周全。他们总是积极响应，并提供详细而务实的解决方案。他们的服务非常令人满意，我们强烈推荐整个团队”。
Jürgen Feldmeier
“Jürgen Feldmeier是一名在高科技工程领域经验丰富的专利律师，他提供的明确建议备受好评。他能轻松处理欧洲专利局的程序和无效诉讼–通常都能取得成功的结果。与他合作非常愉快，而且他对技术有很强的理解能力”。
Dorothea Hofer博士
“Dorothea Hofer博士非常出色。她提供了优质的服务，反应迅速而恰当，并且对复杂的技术问题有很强的理解能力。她对员工的选择得当，组成了一个能够处理诉讼等重要案件的坚实团队。她的工作质量和性价比绝对令人满意。Dorothea Hofer和她的事务所是德国最值得推荐的专利专家之一”。
Andreas Oser博士
“Andreas Oser博士在欧洲专利局的专利授权程序、异议程序以及技术意见方面都是值得推荐的。他非常可靠，并在该领域拥有丰富的经验。他以客户为导向，和他工作合作总是非常好的经历”。
Markus Adamczyk
Markus Adamczyk与上述律师一起入选今年的IAM专利1000强，他是人工智能和计算机实施发明领域公认的专家。凭借其在计算机科学、机械工程方面的知识以及在Vodafone公司的内部研究经验，Adamczyk的技术专长毋庸置疑。他为是Feldmeier的团队里的强力队员，为打印机行业的领军公司（Brother Industries）和特种机械设备制造商海门有限公司（Hymmen GmbH）提供服务。
关于IAM patent 1000强
久负盛名的IAM Patent 1000强排名由伦敦的Globe Business Media Group发布，被广泛认为是寻求世界级专利专业技术和领先专利服务提供商的权威来源。IAM开展了一项广泛的定性研究项目，以确定各个业务领域的优秀事务所和个人。
我们非常高兴地看到，我们的专利律师Dorothea Hofer博士、Jürgen Feldmeier先生以及Andreas Oser博士在2023年6月16日Handelsblatt公布的排名beste Anwälte des Jahres 2023中被列为2023年的年度最佳律师。
我们的三位专家被列入这一著名的排名，对我们的律师事务所来说是一个巨大的荣誉。我们也非常感谢我们的同事，感谢他们的多次推荐和良好的合作!
我们期待着继续在所有的知识产权事务中为我们的客户提供最好的支持，并保护他们的权利。
关于Handelsblatt的最佳律师排名
著名的商业杂志《Handelsblatt》与美国出版社《Best Lawyers（最佳律师）》合作，确定了著名的2023年德国年度最佳律师和商业律师事务所的排名。Handelsblatt目前的版本是基于第15版《最佳律师》的评级。
在该评级程序中，律师们被问及他们可以特别推荐哪些竞争对手。该评选程序遵循的信念是，律师本身最能判断哪些同事在某些法律领域特别有资格。除了他们自己，律师可以由任何人提名。
