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

What IPBC Global 2026 in San Diego Revealed about the Future of IP

At IPBC Global 2026, Solve Intelligence was proud to be a sponsor of the conversations shaping the future of intellectual property. At the conference, we demonstrated how our platform amplifies end-to-end patent workflows, including licensing, litigation, and IP-backed finance.

Key takeaways

  • Generic LLMs cannot perform the structured legal reasoning and claim analysis that patent licensing and litigation require.
  • AI lowers the cost of analysing portfolios, from claim-to-product mappings to validity analyses, accelerating both sides of licensing negotiations.
  • IP-backed finance, insurance, and M&A due diligence are growing in sophistication and volume.
  • The profession faces a capacity gap that generic AI tools are not designed to close.

What Is a Freedom to Operate Analysis, and How Does AI Speed It Up?

A freedom to operate (FTO) analysis is a claim-by-claim assessment of whether a commercial activity would infringe any third-party patents in the markets where it will take place. AI speeds it up by handling the parts that scale badly by hand: surfacing relevant patents, mapping product features against claims element by element, pulling legal status by jurisdiction, and producing a cited, structured draft for the attorney to review and refine.

Key takeaways

• FTO analysis determines whether a product infringes third-party patents.

• A valid patent on your own invention doesn’t guarantee freedom to operate.

• AI compresses the slowest stages of FTO, including search, triage, and element-by-element claim mapping, while the attorney retains the legal judgment and owns the opinion.

• Generalist AI and purpose-built patent tools share a surface format; but FTO reliability depends on integration, not interface.

How to Build an Invalidity Claim Chart: A Practical Guide

An invalidity claim chart is a structured document that maps, for example, each limitation of a patent claim against prior art to show the patent should never have been granted. If you’re defending against infringement allegations, preparing an IPR petition, opposing a European patent, or advising a client on patent risk, knowing how to build one correctly is non-negotiable.

Key takeaways

• A well-built invalidity chart maps every claim limitation to prior art, element by element, with pinpoint citations to the exact column, line, page, or figure.

• When IPRs reach a final written decision, the PTAB now finds every challenged claim unpatentable around 70% of the time; and the chart is a key component of getting a petition instituted in the first place.

• Solve Intelligence’s Charts generates fully cited, limitation-by-limitation invalidity charts in minutes rather than days, flags weak limitation coverage candidly, and lets attorneys inspect the reasoning behind every mapping.

LAC 2026: What Generic and Biosimilar IP Teams Think About AI

Generic and biosimilar IP teams are already using AI for prosecution history and FTO work. The live debate is not about adoption, but internal framing of quality and coverage extension without reducing headcount. The teams furthest along chose the former.

Key takeaways

  • Generic and biosimilar IP teams use AI primarily for prosecution history summaries, invalidity analysis and FTO claim charting.
  • Viewing AI as a quality and coverage extension drives durable internal adoption.
  • General-purpose AI cannot reliably interpret claim scope from prosecution history; patent-specific tools are required.