Post by epi

The "Crystal Clear" Confusion: G 1/24 and the Art of Claim Interpretation 🔍 Patent professionals shoud read Thomas Körner's take on G 1/24 decision https://lnkd.in/dG-zGAgz Most of us know by now that teh decision https://lnkd.in/errfKXDq clarifies that "description and drawings shall ALWAYS be consulted to interpret the claims when assessing patentability" - not just when claims appear unclear in isolation. But does this create new challenges? Thomas Körner dives deep into the unresolved tension: if descriptions must always be consulted for patentability, what happens to the requirement that claims should be clear based on their wording alone? He points to a potential paradox - examiners might demand claim amendments for clarity reasons while simultaneously relying on the description for interpretation when it comes to patentability. The article asks whether this approach risks creating unnecessary amendment requirements that could violate principles of procedural economy and conciseness of claims and even risk introducing dangerous limitations under Article 123 EPC. This ruling will impact how we draft and prosecute applications moving forward. Will it lead to greater certainty or new areas of dispute? Please share your thoughts! #PatentLaw #EPO #G124 #ClaimClarity #IPStrategy #PatentAttorneys