The European Patent Office has released a preview of the amended Guidelines for Examination, which are due to enter into force on the 1st of April 2026.
The amendments incorporate a variety of updates including the addition of information that was previously contained in the Euro-PCT Guide (Part A), the processing of colour drawings (Parts A, C, and H), additional information relating to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) at the EPO (General Part and Part E), the abolition of accelerated search under the PACE program (Part E), a new chapter on the sufficiency of disclosure of further medical use claims (Part F), and reflection on the Board of Appeal decisions G 1/23 and G 1/24 (Parts G and F).
This article will focus on a selection of these updates.
AI Use at the EPO
The use of AI tools is addressed in three places in the updated Guidelines. The first is in the new General Part Section 5, where the EPO’s stance that the parties are responsible for the content of patent applications, regardless of whether a document has been prepared with the assistance of AI, is reinforced. This statement reflects the generative AI guidelines issued by the epi in 2024. The second addition to General Part, Part 5, is the notice that the EPO may use AI to improve the quality and efficiency of its work.
The final addition (E-III, 10.1) relates to the use of AI tools for the creation of meeting minutes of oral proceedings held by video conference before the examining and opposition divisions. The addition states that sound recordings will be made when minutes of oral proceedings are made with the assistance of AI, but that these recordings will not be issued to the parties and will be deleted after the distribution of the minutes.
One well-recognised weakness of AI is its tendency to hallucinate (produce responses that are presented as fact but contain fabricated or incorrect information). Therefore, any outputs generated by AI tools should be thoroughly reviewed to ensure their accuracy before being submitted to official offices. Likewise, any communications from the EPO should be carefully reviewed as AI may have been used to prepare them. Additionally, AI is often unable to correctly summarise complex legal topics, and as such any EPO minutes generated using AI tools should be carefully reviewed by the parties for accuracy. Parties should also continue to make their own detailed notes and minutes from proceedings so that they can be compared with the official EPO minutes.
Colour drawings now permitted
Updates throughout Part A confirm the 5th of September 2025 notice that the electronic filing of colour and greyscale drawings is permitted, including for European divisional applications. Drawings in colour or greyscale filed electronically on or after the 1st of October 2025 will now be published in that format. However, late filed missing drawings, any drawings in translations and drawings filed to remedy deficiencies notified by the Receiving Section must adhere to the format of the original drawings, i.e. they may contain colour or greyscale content only to the same extent as the original drawings.
These additions are a positive change, providing improved flexibility for applicants and ensuring drawings are represented more accurately.
Claim interpretation
In response to G 1/24, which deals with claim interpretation, the EPO has updated the guidance in F-IV, 4.2 relating to interpretation.
The guidelines now state that whilst the claims are the starting point and the basis for assessing the patentability of an invention, the description and drawings are always referred to when interpreting the claims, and not only when there is a lack of clarity or ambiguity. However, the description and drawings cannot be relied upon to bring a restrictive feature into the claim that is not suggested by the wording of the claim. If, conversely, the description provides a special broad definition of a term used in a claim, the claim must be interpreted in light of that broad definition, provided the interpretation is technically meaningful.
These updates align EPO practice with the practice of the UPC and national courts, marking the departure from the previous “claims only” approach. This means that applicants must ensure that the language in the description aligns with the claims, as wording in the description could directly affect claim scope. Additionally, applicants may be in a stronger position to challenge examination objections based on an overly narrow interpretation of the claims.
Products on the Market: G 1/23
In light of G 1/23, relating to products on the market, the guidelines surrounding prior art and enabling disclosure (G-IV 2 and G-IV, 7.2.1) have been amended.
They now state that a product put on the market before the date of filing an application, and all its analysable parts, form a part of the state of the art. The requirement of reproducibility is inherently fulfilled by the fact that the skilled person is able to obtain and possess the product. Technical information about such a product, such as technical brochures and non-patent and patent literature also forms a part of the state of the art, irrespective of whether the skilled person could analyse and reproduce the product.
These updates make it increasingly important for applicants to file patent applications before making any public disclosures, particularly when releasing a product on the market or publishing technical materials.
The full preview of the amended Guidelines for Examination is available on the EPO website.
