EPO-News:
Press Communiqué concerning decision G 1/25

G 1/25 (“Hydroponics”): Adaptation of the description remains required – but only where a genuine deficiency arises, not merely as a matter of formal conformity.

On 3 September 2026 the Enlarged Board of Appeal issued its decision in G 1/25, the referral from T 697/22 on whether the description must be adapted to amended claims .

The answer is a qualified yes. Adaptation is required where an amendment gives rise to an inconsistency that results in non-compliance with Articles 52 to 57, 76(1), 83, 84, 123(2) or 123(3) EPC.

What is crucial, however, is the narrow meaning given to “inconsistency”. Such an inconsistency exists only where the incompatibility cannot be resolved by applying the principles established in G 1/24 and the skilled person is left “in real doubt” as to the meaning of the claim. Unclaimed embodiments do not, in themselves, give rise to such an inconsistency. Moreover, the EPC “does not require an adaptation of the description ... merely for the sake of formal concordance”.

Practical implications:

The requirement to adapt the description remains, but it is triggered by a substantive deficiency rather than by a mere lack of formal conformity. It would therefore seem that any objection requiring amendment of the description should identify the specific EPC provision with which the application would otherwise fail to comply.

Further clarification can be expected once the Guidelines, in particular F-IV, 4.3, have been revised in light of G 1/25.

Our expectation:

Given the EPO's “creativity” when it comes to formal requirements, it's possible that the practice might not change as much as we had all hoped.