EPO Guidelines 2025: What's Changing?

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.