Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 14 OCTOBER 2026

G 1/25: When Must The Description Be Adapted To Amended Claims?

The European Patent Office's Enlarged Board of Appeal has issued a landmark decision in G 1/25 "Hydroponics," addressing a fundamental question that has divided practitioners for years: when patent claims are amended during examination, must the description be adapted to match? The ruling establishes that inconsistencies between claims and descriptions only require correction when they result in non-compliance with the European Patent Convention, not merely for achieving formal consistency.

LuxembourgIntellectual Property

On 3 September 2026, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office issued its decision in G 1/25 “Hydroponics”, clarifying a long-debated question in European patent practice: when claims are amended, must the description also be adapted?

The Enlarged Board held that an inconsistency between amended claims and the description or drawings must be addressed if it results in non-compliance with a requirement of the European Patent Convention (EPC). However, the EPC does not directly and explicitly require applicants to amend the description merely to achieve formal consistency with the amended claims.

Why does G 1/25 matter?

Practitioners welcome G 1/25 as it lies at the heart of a very practical debate between applicants working together with their patent attorneys, and EPO examiners: after narrowing the claims, how much of the description must be rewritten? For years, applicants invested significant time, effort, and money adapting sometimes lengthy descriptions,

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from