EPO Guidelines 2026 Start Shaping Filing Practice

The 2026 edition of the EPO Guidelines for Examination has been in force since 1 April. By May, the new text is no longer a future reference point; it is now shaping drafting, prosecution timing and responses to examination communications. For European patent applicants, the practical impact is concentrated in a few areas: responsibility for AI-assisted drafting, the end of accelerated search under PACE, the novelty effect of product disclosures, and the way claims are interpreted in light of the description and drawings.

These changes matter at the level of filing decisions. Using AI tools does not reduce the applicant’s ultimate responsibility for the content and compliance of submitted documents. Applicants seeking an early search report also need to rethink strategies that previously relied on PACE for accelerated search. With G 1/23 and G 1/24 now reflected in the Guidelines, product launches, samples, definitions in the description and claim wording all need closer coordination before filing.

AI use does not shift responsibility away from applicants

The new Guidelines make the point plainly: whether or not AI tools are used to prepare documents filed with the EPO, the parties remain responsible for the content of the patent application and for compliance with the EPC or PCT. This is not a ban on AI-assisted drafting, nor does it create a separate disclosure duty for every use of AI. The real message is simpler: the tool is not a liability buffer.

In practice, applicants and representatives should not expect “AI-assisted preparation” to explain away errors in the description, inconsistent terminology, overbroad claims or technical effects that lack support. Where AI is used for translation, prior-art summaries, first drafts or claim redrafting, the final filing still needs legal and technical review by people who understand the invention. A safer workflow is to keep version records, inventor confirmations, terminology checks and final review notes, not only the PDF that is eventually filed.

This is especially relevant for AI, software and data-driven inventions. The key issue is rarely whether the application mentions AI. It is whether the description explains the data, model architecture, training or inference process, and how those features produce a technical effect. AI tools may speed up drafting, but they do not supply the disclosure.

The end of PACE accelerated search changes timing strategy

The PACE change will be felt most directly in prosecution planning. Under the 2026 Guidelines, PACE no longer provides a route for requesting accelerated search; it remains available for accelerated examination. Applicants who previously used PACE to obtain an early European search report before deciding on divisionals, funding disclosures, licensing talks or litigation positioning need to adjust their calendar.

The EPO’s policy context is that search timeliness has improved. But for an individual applicant, a generally faster system is not the same as a controllable fast-track search. If a company needs a search signal before a transaction window, product launch or competitor disclosure, PACE search should no longer be treated as the main tool. Drafting quality, the number of claims, drawings, sequence listings and procedural choices at European phase entry will carry more weight.

PCT cases entering the European phase deserve earlier planning. Whether to file amendments immediately, settle claim fees, waive certain communications or move quickly toward examination should be decided before entry, not after the procedure has already started. Waiting until later to ask whether search can be accelerated is now a weak strategy.

G 1/23 raises the risk profile of product disclosures

With G 1/23 incorporated into the Guidelines, product launches and sample circulation require closer novelty analysis. The key point is that a product placed on the market is not excluded from the prior art merely because its composition or internal structure is difficult to analyse or reproduce. If product properties can be determined through analysis, the question becomes whether that information has become available to the public.

This matters for chemicals, materials, consumer electronics, mechanical products, medical devices and composite goods. Many companies pay close attention to manuals, brochures and exhibition materials but underestimate the effect of physical samples, pilot sales, supply-chain deliveries and customer testing. Under the updated approach, the issue is not only whether technical documents were published. The product itself may disclose technical information.

A pre-launch patent check should therefore look beyond marketing copy. If samples, test units or commercial products contain formulas, material parameters, structural features or process traces that have not yet been filed, applicants should assess whether those features can be obtained through ordinary or reasonably expected analysis. Confidentiality agreements, sample control, filing dates and disclosure language should be reviewed together.

G 1/24 brings the description into claim interpretation

G 1/24 also changes the practical handling of claim interpretation. When assessing patentability, the description and drawings are not consulted only when a claim is unclear or ambiguous. They are used to interpret the claims. Applicants should not assume that examiners will read claim wording in isolation.

That does not mean limitations missing from the claim can simply be imported from the description. The claims remain the starting point for patentability. The danger lies in misalignment: a description that defines a term too broadly or too narrowly, examples that imply a single workable embodiment, and claims that fail to draw a clear boundary. Such gaps can become larger during search, examination, opposition or later disputes.

For European filings prepared after May, definitions, embodiments, technical effects and claims should be reviewed together. If a term has a special meaning in the application, that meaning should be visible from the claim language where possible. If the description is meant to provide background only, it should not accidentally become a hidden limitation. European drafting quality is moving from “good claims” toward “claims and description that work together”.

What applicants should change first

First, add a responsibility check after any AI-assisted drafting. The point is not to record every tool used, but to confirm that the final text is accurate, complete and supported. Second, rebuild European filing timelines, especially for projects that depend on early search results. PACE accelerated search should not remain in internal templates as a default assumption. Third, review products that are about to be disclosed or are already circulating, and file before exposure where the technical risk is material.

Fourth, review claims and description together. After G 1/24, the description is not a background annex; it is part of the interpretation environment. The most reliable European strategy is still practical and disciplined: write the technical facts clearly, control public disclosure before filing, and align procedural expectations with the Guidelines now in force.