EPO Guidelines 2025: What's Changing?

The EPO has released previews of the updated Guidelines for Examination that will come into force on April 1, 2025. Here at Solve Intelligence, we've analyzed the changes to understand their impact on European Patent Practice. Here are just some of the notable proposed changes.

EPO Guidelines 2025: What's Changing?

AI for patents.

Be 50%+ more productive. Join thousands of legal professionals around the world using Solve’s Patent Copilot™ for drafting, prosecution, invention harvesting, and more.

Use of AI Tools

Firstly, in the General Part of the Guidelines (point 5), a section regarding the use of AI tools has been added:

‘The parties and their representatives are responsible for the content of their patent applications and submissions to the EPO and for complying with the requirements of the EPC regardless of whether a document has been prepared with the assistance of an artificial intelligence (AI) tool.’

The notion that the attorney retains responsibility for their work, regardless of whether they used an AI tool in the process, reflects the recent epi guidelines 3a and 3b in the ‘Use of Generative AI in the Work of Patent Attorneys’. 

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

The Guidelines in G-II-3.3.1 refer to Artificial intelligence and Machine Learning. Following their expansion last year, these guidelines have been further refined in 2025. Firstly, the definition of algorithms has been generalised via removal of specific references to particular techniques like "classification, clustering, regression and dimensionality reduction."

Secondly, further guidance has been added regarding the patentability of AI and ML based inventions. The new guidelines note that: 

‘if a claim of an invention related to artificial intelligence or machine learning is directed either to a method involving the use of technical means (e.g. a computer) or to a device, its subject-matter has technical character as a whole and is thus not excluded from patentability under Art. 52(2) or (3). In such cases, the computational models and algorithms themselves contribute to the technical character of the invention if they contribute to a technical solution to a technical problem, for example by being applied in a field of technology and/or by being adapted to a specific technical implementation.’

This additional contextual information reflects the tried and tested approach to patentability and inventive step that we have seen for many years with respect to computer-implemented inventions. Case law is still light in this area, but decisions like T1669/21 will illustrate more clearly how the EPO intend to assess AI specifically.

Technical Effect in the Problem-Solution Approach

Several updates in G-VII-5.2 relate to technical effects in the problem-solution approach. The Guidelines now explicitly acknowledge that a technical effect submitted during proceedings can be relied upon for an inventive step argument, with T 116/18 confirming these need not be literally disclosed in the original application. However the two criteria from T 1989/19 must be met cumulatively: effects must be encompassed by the technical teaching and embodied by the originally disclosed invention.

Digital Updates

The Guidelines have also been updated to reflect the EPO's ongoing digital transformation. There are updates to the Guidelines in several places regarding the use of MyEPO Portfolio, the EPO's new digital tool for managing communications and correspondence with professional representatives.

There’s information regarding a shared space functionality (detailed in C-VII-2.6, referencing OJ EPO 2023, A59). The ‘shared-area’ allows applicants and examiners to jointly edit documents during consultations and upload and modify documents before and during consultations.

There’s also information regarding fee waivers for MyEPO Portfolio users (A-X-5.2.7), streamlined refunds (A-X-10.3.3) and digital delivery of translations and non-patent literature via MyEPO Portfolio (B-X-11.2)

For the preview of the changes in full, see here.

Related articles

How Much of Your Patent Practice Should You Codify?

Both in-house teams and outside counsel can let a purpose-built platform carry the shared foundation for their patent work. They can then focus their limited time on the standards and judgment that set their work apart. AI has made this division of labor more valuable by raising the payoff for turning a practice into templates, instructions, and review criteria that run at scale. Let’s call that codification. The platform can encode a great deal of best practice out of the box, and a team can add its own custom templates and instructions on top. The real question is how much to add and how much to leave to the platform. There is no fixed formula because the right balance changes as the team’s practice, the law, and the technology evolve.

How Successful Patent Practitioners Are Putting AI to Work

The most effective patent practitioners are already using AI patent drafting to draft faster, catch claim inconsistencies earlier, and free up hours for the strategic work that actually wins allowances.

Key takeaways

  • AI patent drafting tools can reduce application drafting time by up to 80 percent, with Solve Intelligence customers consistently reporting 50 percent or greater efficiency gains across drafting and prosecution 
  • Roughly 9 out of 10 utility patent applications receive at least one office action rejection, so prosecution efficiency matters as much as drafting speed 
  • Solo attorneys use AI to match larger law firms on turnaround speed and client capacity
  • The strongest reported results come from iterative AI–attorney collaboration, with practitioners directing the process and owning the final work product

Adopting AI in Patent Work: A Practical Playbook for IP Teams

Solve Intelligence works with over 700+ patent teams as they bring AI into daily practice, and the same pattern shows up again and again: recognising that AI helps is easy, but building consistent, team-wide use is not. Adoption tends to stall for a handful of reasons, from informal early experiments to unclear decision making, and a promising trial can fade out without anyone establishing whether the tool or the rollout was at fault. This playbook lays out the process that gets a team from first experiment to settled habit, with the attorney's judgment in control at every step.

How AI Brings Patent Intelligence Into Every Decision

AI makes it practical to rerun patent intelligence as products and patent rights develop. For example, at concept stage, broad freedom-to-operate screening identifies the rights that merit attention. As the design matures, selected patents are escalated for feature-by-feature claim charts, while scheduled monitoring refreshes the analysis when claims are amended or an application proceeds to grant.

This contrasts with the traditional approach, in which landscapes, FTO reviews, and portfolio analyses were commissioned as separate projects at fixed stages. Each took substantial time to complete and was rarely repeated.