EPO Guidelines 2026: Key Changes Including G 1/24, G 1/23, and AI

The European Patent Office has published a preview of its Guidelines for Examination, effective April 2026. This update incorporates the landmark Enlarged Board decisions G 1/24 (claim interpretation) and G 1/23 (products on the market), alongside a significant change of practice for selection inventions, new rules on colour drawings, and the EPO's first formal guidance on artificial intelligence.

EPO Guidelines 2026: Key Changes Including G 1/24, G 1/23, and AI

Key takeaways

  • For novelty and prior art, the Guidelines abandon former selection-invention tests and confirm that marketed products and their analysable properties form part of the state of the art (G1/23).
  • Claim interpretation at the EPO now always refers to the description and drawings (G1/24).
  • The EPO introduces dedicated guidance on artificial intelligence, confirming that parties remain fully responsible for AI-assisted filings and formalising AI use within EPO procedures.
  • Additional changes affect medical use claims, colour drawings, amendments, Euro-PCT procedure, and accelerated prosecution, with practical consequences across prosecution and opposition practice.

We explore some of the key updates by topic below.

Novelty & Prior Art

Selection Inventions

The Guidelines introduce a change of practice regarding the assessment of novelty for selection inventions (G-VI, 7 and G-VII, 12).

The previous tests—"seriously contemplate" for individual selections and "narrow and sufficiently far removed" for sub-ranges—have been abandoned. In their place, the Guidelines adopt the "gold standard": a sub-range is novel if it cannot be established that the skilled person, using common general knowledge, can directly and unambiguously derive the selected sub-range from the prior art (G 2/10, T 1688/20).

Decision G 1/23: Products on the Market

The Guidelines have been amended in view of decision G 1/23, with key updates to prior art and enabling disclosure (G-IV, 2 and G-IV, 7.2.1).

The updated guidance confirms:

  • The requirement for an enabling disclosure does not apply to products put on the market
  • A product placed on the market, together with all its analysable properties, forms part of the state of the art
  • This applies to both naturally occurring and man-made materials
  • Reproducibility is not required - the requirement is inherently fulfilled by the skilled person's ability to obtain and possess the marketed product
  • Technical information about such products (e.g. technical brochures, patent or non-patent literature) also forms part of the state of the art, irrespective of whether the skilled person could analyse and reproduce the product

Further Medical Use Claims

New guidance on novelty assessment for Article 54(5) claims, including a dedicated F-III, 10. Key new subsections clarify when prior art is novelty-destroying: G-VI, 6.1.2.1 addresses preclinical data and clinical trials (mere announcement of a clinical trial without positive results may not destroy novelty); G-VI, 6.1.2.2 covers patient group definitions (a different patient sub-group characterised by biomarkers, age, etc. may represent a new specific use); and G-VI, 6.1.2.3 addresses mechanistic definitions leading to new clinical situations.

Clarity & Interpretation

Decision G 1/24: Claim Interpretation

The Guidelines have been amended in view of decision G 1/24, with key updates to claim interpretation principles (F-IV, 4.2) and consequential changes at the search stage (B-III, 3.2).

The updated guidance confirms that:

  • The description and drawings are always referred to when interpreting the claims - not just in cases of ambiguity or lack of clarity
  • However, the description and drawings cannot be relied upon to read into a claim a restrictive feature not suggested by the wording of the claim
  • Where the description includes a special broad definition of a term used in a claim, the claim must be interpreted in light of that broad definition when assessing patentability

Clarity of Claims

Part F, Chapter IV has been updated with:

  • A new positive definition of clarity based on the Case Law Book (F-IV, 4.1)
  • Updated guidance on relative terms following case law developments (F-IV, 4.6)
  • Clarification that claims not consecutively numbered in Arabic numerals may be objected to (F-IV, 4.23)

Drawings

Colour Drawings Now Permitted

Following OJ EPO 2025, A49 and A57, the Guidelines now address the processing of colour drawings across multiple sections. Key updates include:

  • A-II, 5.4.2: Clarifies that missing drawings filed based on a priority application can include colour drawings, provided they are in the same format as the priority application
  • A-III, 3.2: Updated physical requirements for documents making up the application to accommodate colour drawings
  • A-IX: Comprehensive updates throughout Chapter IX on drawings, including reproducibility requirements (IX, 2.1, 2.2), conditions for filing (IX, 3), presentation of sheets (IX, 4.1, 4.2), execution requirements (IX, 7.1, 7.5.4), and a new subsection on replacement drawings under Rule 58 (IX, 10.1)
  • H-V, 5: Updates regarding colour drawings in the context of amendments

Procedure

Abolition of PACE for Search

The Programme for Accelerated Prosecution of European Patent Applications (PACE) has been abolished for the search phase (E-VIII, 4). Accelerated search is no longer available, as reflected in amendments to A-XI, 2.3 referencing OJ EPO 2025, A69. PACE remains available for examination.

Amendments

The Guidelines now provide important clarifications on how divisions must exercise their discretion when admitting or refusing amendments.

Examination (H-II, 2.3): When exercising discretionary power not to admit amendments, the Examining Division must give reasons as to why the amended claims are prima facie not allowable. Importantly, if the reasons for refusing a request require the same detailed discussion as would be needed had the request been admitted, then that request should be admitted. An extensive reasoning as to why amended claims are not allowable is not compatible with a prima facie assessment.

Opposition (E-VI, 2.2.1): The Opposition Division must first review the contents of an auxiliary request when considering whether to refuse it. This ensures an assessment is made as to whether the request is a fair attempt at overcoming objections, and whether it is prima facie allowable.

Postponement for New Objections (E-III, 8.11.1): Where new and major objections are raised during oral proceedings, and the applicant or proprietor cannot reasonably be required to make the necessary amendments there and then, a request for postponement or to continue proceedings in writing shall be granted.

Repeated Amendment Requests After Rule 71(3) (C-V, 4.10): New guidance on the procedure to be followed when applicants repeatedly request amendments in reply to communications under Rule 71(3) (text intended for grant). The Guidelines now detail when a summons to oral proceedings must be issued and when the application can be refused immediately.

Euro-PCT

Euro-PCT procedural guidance has been reorganised: Part E, Chapter IX content has moved to new Chapters A-XII to A-XV, consolidating all formalities examination within Part A.

Artificial Intelligence

A new General Part, Section 5 addresses the use of artificial intelligence. The EPO has adopted a clear principle: parties are responsible for the content of their patent applications and submissions regardless of whether a document has been prepared with the assistance of an AI tool - mirroring the position taken by the epi in their guidelines on generative AI.

This builds upon the preliminary guidance introduced in 2025, which first acknowledged AI tool usage. The 2026 update goes further—the EPO now has a dedicated section rather than a passing reference, and confirms that AI "can improve the quality and efficiency" of its own work while committing to a "human-centric approach" governed by its formal AI policy.

Additionally, the EPO has introduced AI-assisted minute-taking for oral proceedings (E-III, 10.1). Sound recordings are now made when minutes of oral proceedings held by videoconference before examining and opposition divisions are drawn up with AI assistance. These recordings are deleted once the minutes are issued to the parties, and copies of the recordings are not provided to parties. This follows a successful pilot phase—for more detail, see our previous coverage of the EPO's AI-assisted minute-taking initiative.

Staying Current with Patent Copilot

The EPO's recognition that AI "can improve the quality and efficiency" of patent work reflects a growing consensus across the profession - from the epi to major law firms and in-house teams worldwide.

At Solve Intelligence, Patent Copilot provides comprehensive, integrated access to the EPO Guidelines for Examination and the EPO Case Law of the Boards of Appeal. The integration of these legal texts with our AI provides users with instant, contextual access to authoritative EPO guidance when working with Solve Intelligence's Patent Copilot. Our dedicated team of European patent attorneys ensures this resource is continuously updated to reflect the latest developments, including the 2026 revisions covered in this article.

Request a Demo to see how Patent Copilot keeps you current with EPO practice.

The 2026 Guidelines enter into force in April 2026. The binding version will be published on the EPO website in both HTML and PDF formats, with modifications viewable via the "Show modifications" feature. This article provides a general overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult qualified professionals before acting on any of the information presented. 

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.

Related articles

Page White Farrer Adopts Solve Intelligence for AI-Assisted Patent Drafting

Page White Farrer Adopts Solve Intelligence and Solve's AI Templates

Page White Farrer ("PWF"), a specialist intellectual property firm with a longstanding focus on technology-driven innovation, has selected Solve Intelligence to support patent application drafting following an extensive evaluation of available AI tools. The firm has initially deployed the platform within its technology-focused patent teams, supporting work across sectors such as AI, software, telecommunications, electronics, semiconductors and engineering. 

The firm's objective was not to automate legal judgement or replace attorney expertise, but to accelerate the preparation of high-quality first drafts of patent applications. By combining AI-assisted drafting with custom templates tailored to the firm's preferred drafting approaches, Solve Intelligence helps attorneys move from an initial claim set to a reviewable first draft more efficiently while maintaining consistency and technical accuracy. 

For this partnership, PWF's primary focus was on configuring the platform around the firm's own drafting conventions, client preferences and established best practices, ensuring that the technology supports the way its attorneys already work. 

The Honest Risks of Using AI in Patent Prosecution

AI is changing how patent prosecution gets done, and the upside is real. So are the downsides: hallucinated citations, confidentiality exposure, export-control pitfalls, and prosecution-history estoppel. This is an honest account of the risks of AI patent software in prosecution, and what actually reduces each one.

Key takeaways

  • Anyone presenting AI-assisted content to the USPTO must reasonably review it; relying on the tool's accuracy alone is not enough.
  • Courts have already sanctioned attorneys for AI-hallucinated citations, and similar risk applies to office-action responses and PTAB briefs.
  • The USPTO warns that AI tools on foreign servers can raise export-control, foreign-filing-license, and national-security problems.
  • Grounded citations, exposed reasoning, zero data retention, and attorney oversight are what materially reduce AI risk in patent prosecution.

Maiwald Chooses Solve Intelligence for Selected AI-Supported IP Workflows

Solve Intelligence is proud to share that Maiwald, one of Germany’s largest and most progressive intellectual property firms, works with Solve Intelligence on selected AI-supported workflows in its patent and legal practice groups. Following an evaluation period during which selected functionalities were assessed for approved internal use cases, Maiwald and Solve have formed an enterprise partnership for 2026.

The rollout reflects the same careful approach Maiwald brings to its client work. Solve enables customers in Europe to process data on servers located within Europe and holds recognized information-security certifications. In addition, Solve offers contractual commitments designed to protect confidential professional information in line with applicable statutory confidentiality obligations and professional conduct requirements. Against that background, any use of AI-supported tools took place only within approved governance structures and under applicable professional, contractual, confidentiality and data-protection requirements.

That balance of innovation and professional judgment is characteristic of Maiwald. The firm has spent decades setting a standard for IP work in Europe: rigorous prosecution, a formidable contentious practice, and interdisciplinary teams of patent attorneys and attorneys-at-law working side by side. The firm approached AI the same way, methodically, with a clear sense of where it adds leverage and where an experienced attorney’s judgment remains irreplaceable. 

PTAB Case Studies of AI Disclosure Requirements: Part II

This article is the second of a series of Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) case studies (see Part I), which aims to inform applicants’ approach to satisfying the written description and enablement requirements for patenting artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning technologies.