EPO's G 1/25 "Hydroponics": No More Adapting the Description Just for Form's Sake

By Haedar

Photo: gagnonm1993 / Pixabay

For years, one of the most criticised steps in European patent prosecution has been the "adaptation of the description". Before grant, EPO examiners routinely asked applicants to delete or disclaim passages in the description that no longer matched the amended claims. In decision G 1/25 ("Hydroponics"), issued on 3 September 2026, the EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal has sharply limited that practice. We had not covered the decision on this blog, and its effect on day-to-day prosecution is now starting to show.

The question

The referral came from a Technical Board of Appeal in case T 697/22 on 29 July 2025, in a case about a hydroponic growing system. The Board asked, in essence, whether the European Patent Convention (EPC) gives the EPO a legal basis to require applicants or patentees to amend the description so that it is consistent with amended claims, and if so, when.

The answer

According to the EPO's press communiqué, the Enlarged Board held that:

• The description must be adapted only where an inconsistency between the description and the claims leads to non-compliance with a specific EPC requirement. The provisions named are Articles 52 to 57 (patentability), 76(1) (divisional applications), 83 (sufficiency of disclosure), 84 (clarity, support and conciseness of the claims), and 123(2) and (3) (added matter and extension of protection).
• There is no general, purely formal requirement that the description and the claims match word for word.
• The claim-interpretation principles set out in G 1/24 apply to Article 84 as well. In G 1/24 the Enlarged Board held that the description and drawings must always be consulted when interpreting claims. A passage in the description therefore matters only if it actually makes the claims unclear or unsupported when the claims are read as a whole.
• The same approach applies in examination, opposition and appeal.

What changes in practice

Applicants should see fewer last-minute requests to delete "embodiments not covered by the claims" or to add stock disclaimers. An examiner who wants an amendment must now link the inconsistency to one of the listed EPC provisions and explain why it causes non-compliance.

This does not make the description irrelevant. Because G 1/24 requires the description to be used to interpret claims, a passage that contradicts the claims can still narrow or confuse their meaning, both at the EPO and later in national courts or the Unified Patent Court. Some applicants may choose to tidy the description voluntarily for exactly that reason.

Indonesia angle

Many patent applications filed with DJKI are members of families that also have European filings. An Indonesian application contains its own description, claims and abstract, and DJKI examines it under Indonesian law, not the EPC. G 1/25 therefore has no legal effect in Indonesia. In practice, though, applicants who used to copy EPO-adapted descriptions into their Indonesian files may now have fewer amendments to copy. They should check that the Indonesian description still supports the Indonesian claims on its own terms. We are not aware of an Indonesian court decision on whether inconsistent description passages limit the scope of a granted claim.

---

Sources

• European Patent Office, "Press communiqué of 3 September 2026 concerning decision G 1/25"
• European Patent Office, Enlarged Board of Appeal, decision G 1/25 (datasheet and decision text)