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

Solve Intelligence Ranked #1 IP Platform by the World's Leading Law Firms

Solve Intelligence has been ranked the number one intellectual property platform in the latest Legal AI survey published by SKILLS (the Strategic Knowledge & Innovation Legal Leaders Summit). The study surveyed 130 leaders at the world's top law firms about their legal AI product usage across every major practice area, scoring platforms based on live deployments, active pilots, and tools under consideration. In the Patents/IP category, Solve Intelligence placed first with a weighted score of 67, making it the most widely-used platform in the category. See the full report here.

The Hidden Cost of Ignoring AI in Patent Practice

As patent practitioners, the choice to “do nothing” about AI is not a neutral act. 

Law firms or in-house counsel that delay the adoption of AI may believe they are minimizing risk, but oftentimes they are taking on a different set of less visible, long-term risks. 

These hidden costs can accumulate quickly, from compounding inefficiencies in traditional patent drafting workflows to missed revenue opportunities that remain untapped without leveraging AI-driven capabilities.

So, what can patent practitioners do to stay ahead of the game? Here is what the Solve Intelligence team has seen speaking with thousands of practitioners.

Key takeaways

  • Waiting to adopt AI is itself a strategic decision with compounding costs.
  • Manual patent workflows create time, quality, and knowledge bottlenecks that grow over time.
  • Firms already experimenting with AI gain operational insight that late adopters cannot shortcut.
  • Low-risk entry points let practitioners build confidence without compromising legal judgment.

Why Patent Attorneys Need Purpose-Built AI

Legal AI platforms like Harvey and Legora are valuable productivity tools. Powered by large language models and enriched with legal data sources, firm-specific knowledge, and purpose-built workflows, they perform well on tasks like legal research, document summarisation, and contract or email drafting.

But their workflows are optimised for breadth across practice areas, not for the structural, technical, and jurisdictional depth that patent work requires.

For IP teams that already have access to a generalist platform, or are trying one out, the natural follow-up question is whether a vertical solution adds enough to justify the investment. 

At Solve Intelligence, we build AI specifically for patent practitioners. In our experience scaling the platform to over 500 IP teams, there is no question that patent-specific tooling delivers ROI that generalist platforms alone cannot. This article sets out why.

Key takeaways

  • Generalist legal AI tools weren't trained for the structural depth patent work demands.
  • Solve Intelligence is shaped by in-house patent attorneys who joined Solve from firms like Carpmaels & Ransford and Fish & Richardson.
  • Custom templating lets attorneys match output to house style, client/technology area, or jurisdiction.
  • Generalist and patent-specific AI are complementary investments, not competing ones.

Marbury Law sees 3x-4x efficiency gain from using Solve Intelligence

When we sat down with Bob Hansen for this conversation, we knew it would be grounded in both legal depth and real-world business experience. Bob is a founding partner of The Marbury Law Group and has extensive experience across patent prosecution, litigation, licensing, portfolio strategy, and complex IP transactions. But what makes his perspective particularly compelling is that he also brings 20 years of real-world experience as an engineer, program manager, and business executive in Fortune 50 companies and start-ups. He understands firsthand how innovation moves from idea to product, and how intellectual property law fits into that journey.

That dual lens is exactly why we wanted to have this discussion. Bob evaluates technology not just as a patent attorney, but as someone who has managed engineering teams, navigated acquisitions and divestitures, raised capital, and built businesses. When someone with that background says AI has been transformative and backs it up with measurable 3 to 4x efficiency gains, it’s worth listening.

Key Insights

  • AI adoption requires proof. Bob and his team tested multiple tools before committing, and only moved forward once they saw quantifiable results.
  • 3 to 4x efficiency gains changed the business case. By tracking his own drafting time, Bob demonstrated that AI-enabled workflows made fixed-fee work viable at partner rates.
  • Demonstration drives adoption. Live drafting sessions, client transparency, and side-by-side cost comparisons created full buy-in from both clients and colleagues.
  • Integrated chat removes friction. Keeping research, drafting, and revisions inside one contextual workspace eliminated copy-paste workflows and saved significant time.
  • Context is a force multiplier. AI performs best when it understands the full invention disclosure, file history, and drafting materials in one place.
  • Speed expands strategic value. Faster drafting didn’t just save time - it enabled better coverage, stronger enablement, and real-time responsiveness to client needs.

About Marbury Law

The Marbury Law Group is a premier mid-size, full-service intellectual property and technology law firm in the Washington, D.C. area, with additional strength in commercial law, litigation, and trademark litigation. Recognized by Juristat as a top 35 law firm nationwide and holding Martindale-Hubbell’s AV® Preeminent™ Peer Review Rating, Marbury serves clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies and mid-size technology businesses to high-tech startups and inventors. Its practitioners bring unusually wide-ranging experience, including former technology executives, government R&D managers, startup founders, in-house counsel, “big-law” attorneys, USPTO patent examiners, and judicial clerks. 

Marbury delivers “big-law” service with the flexibility and personal attention of a smaller firm, pairing high-quality work with efficient, budget-aware billing. Based near the USPTO, the firm has drafted and prosecuted thousands of U.S. and foreign patent applications and trademarks, and advises on IP strategy, diligence, and licensing. Formed in 2009 through the merger of two established practices (with roots dating back to 1994), the firm takes its name from Marbury v. Madison (1803), the landmark Supreme Court case that established judicial review.