The week's items for software and AI filers are a USPTO memo on eligibility declarations and EPO filing and acceleration changes; I also include one earlier EPO Enlarged Board decision (Sep 3) on description adaptation. I found no verified UKIPO practice change in the window; the text of Patent Journal special notice 7167 (Sep 30) is only published as an ODT file, which I could not open.
01USPTO · Sep 29USPTO issues SMED flowchart memo; says no new practice (issued)
On Sep 29, 2026 the USPTO issued a memorandum, "Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations (SMEDs) under 37 CFR 1.132 – Flowchart for Analysis and Best Practices," supplementing the Director's Memorandum of Apr 30, 2026. It adds an examiner flowchart for reviewing SMEDs and best practices for applicants. The USPTO states the memo is consistent with existing guidance and announces no new practice or procedure.
Per IPWatchdog's report of the memo (secondary source): the best practices are described as not requirements. They include a separate SMED rather than a combined declaration, Patent Center code AF/D.SMED, and filing before the first action so the examiner can consider it in the initial 101 evaluation. A SMED after final rejection requires good and sufficient reasons. Practitioner commentary quoted there questions the strategic cost of volunteering a declaration early; that is the commentator's reading.
For startups: treat a SMED as optional evidence, weigh its cost and record risk against an eligibility rejection, and draft the specification to state technical improvements the declaration could cite.
02EPO · Oct 1EPO's revised PACE programme applies from Oct 1, examination only (final)
OJ EPO 2026, A44 (notice dated Sep 11, online Sep 30) replaces the Dec 2025 PACE notice. The revised programme enters into force Oct 1, 2026 and applies to requests filed on or after that date. PACE has been limited to the examination phase since Feb 1, 2026. A request may be filed only once, once the examining division is responsible, via EPO Form 1005 or MyEPO; bulk requests must use the new MyEPO feature. Requests are free.
The EPO aims to issue the next action within three months of the latest of receipt, response or request. Removal from PACE (for example after an extension request, withdrawal or refusal) is permanent, and these removal and suspension conditions also apply to already-pending applications. Applicants requesting PACE for most applications may be asked to select a subset.
For startups: request PACE once and only when needed, avoid extension requests that remove the application from the programme, and use MyEPO for filing.
03EPO · Apr 1EPO makes e-filing and e-notification mandatory from Apr 1, 2027 (final)
OJ EPO 2026, A43 (notice dated Sep 8, online Sep 30) explains amended Rules 2, 114 and 125 EPC (CA/D 2/26), in force Apr 1, 2027, with implementing President's decisions already issued (OJ A40–A42). Postal filings keep their filing date but must be refiled electronically within a non-extendable two months of invitation; failure leads to refusal of a European application. The paper filing fee, not the reduced online fee, still applies. Third-party observations on paper will be deemed not filed.
Notification will be through MyEPO Mailbox. A representative or party with no MyEPO Mailbox recipient setup risks public notification under Rule 129 EPC. Mailboxes cannot later be deactivated. Night mailboxes close and hand delivery ends.
For startups: before Apr 1, 2027, set up MyEPO accounts and Mailbox recipients, and docket the two-month refiling period for any paper filing.
04EPO Enlarged Board · Sep 3EPO Enlarged Board G 1/25: adapt description only where inconsistency breaches EPC (decided)
Older item, Sep 3, 2026, included as new to most readers. In G 1/25 ("Hydroponics"), the Enlarged Board held that adaptation of the description or drawings is required only where an inconsistency with amended claims causes non-compliance with Articles 52–57, 76(1), 83, 84, 123(2) or 123(3) EPC. An inconsistency with no such effect need not be removed; the EPC does not require purely formal concordance.
It also held that description and drawings must always be consulted to interpret claims, as a unitary process, under Article 84 as well as for patentability (following G 1/24), without importing limitations the claim wording does not support. Terms are read as defined in the description where technically reasonable.
For startups: draft definitions in the description deliberately, since they can shape claim meaning at the EPO, and expect fewer purely formal description amendments.
Enable JavaScript to read this edition.