G 1/24 makes internal consistency across the claims, description and drawings an immediate patentability issue, not merely a question for later enforcement.
The Enlarged Board of Appeal issued G 1/24 on 18 June 2025. The decision concerns interpretation of claims when patentability is assessed under Articles 52 to 57 of the European Patent Convention.
The ruling
The Enlarged Board held that the claims are the starting point and basis for the patentability assessment. It also held that the description and drawings must always be consulted to interpret the claims. Consultation is not limited to cases where a claim appears unclear or ambiguous when read alone.
The decision resolved diverging approaches in the case law of the Boards of Appeal. It does not make the wording of the claims secondary. It explains how the claims are to be understood for the stated patentability provisions.
Why terminology now deserves closer control
A definition in the description can influence the meaning attributed to a claim term. The same is true of a drawing that consistently presents a feature in a particular relationship. A broad phrase in a claim should therefore be reviewed against every express definition, embodiment and technical explanation.
Applicants should avoid using one term for different concepts or several terms for the same concept without a reason. Drafting convenience can become an interpretation problem.
- Identify each term that carries the inventive distinction.
- Check whether the description gives that term an express or implied definition.
- Confirm that drawings do not contradict the intended breadth.
- Describe optional features as optional where that is technically correct.
- Ensure amendments remain supported by the application as filed.
Prosecution strategy
When an examiner relies on the description to interpret a claim, the first step is to identify the exact passage and the meaning said to follow from it. The response should address the claim language and the disclosure together.
An amendment may remove doubt, but it can introduce questions of added subject matter or clarity. The full amendment basis should be checked before a term is narrowed or a definition is moved into the claim.
Impact on prior art analysis
Claim construction can affect whether a prior art document discloses every element and whether a technical difference supports inventive step. Search and opinion work should record the construction used for material terms. This makes the novelty and inventive step analysis easier to audit.
Lessons for international drafting
A PCT application intended for Europe should not depend on an unstated private meaning. It should explain important terms, disclose credible alternatives and maintain consistency across the abstract, claims, description and drawings.
Frequently asked questions
Are claims still the basis of the assessment?
Yes. G 1/24 expressly states that the claims are the starting point and basis for assessing patentability under Articles 52 to 57 EPC.
Is the description consulted only when a claim is ambiguous?
No. The Enlarged Board said the description and drawings are always consulted for interpretation in that assessment.
Does G 1/24 decide every question about adapting the description?
No. The order addresses claim interpretation for patentability. Other procedural and substantive requirements must be considered separately.