{"id":29774,"date":"2026-09-15T15:10:59","date_gmt":"2026-09-15T15:10:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/?post_type=insight&p=29774"},"modified":"2026-09-16T12:27:58","modified_gmt":"2026-09-16T12:27:58","slug":"g-1-25-towards-a-definitive-clarification-of-the-obligation-to-adapt-the-description-to-amended-claims-implications-and-consequences-for-applicants-and-holders-of-european-patents","status":"publish","type":"insight","link":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/en\/insight\/g-1-25-towards-a-definitive-clarification-of-the-obligation-to-adapt-the-description-to-amended-claims-implications-and-consequences-for-applicants-and-holders-of-european-patents\/","title":{"rendered":"G 1\/25: Towards a definitive clarification of the obligation to adapt the description to amended claims \u2013 Implications and consequences for applicants and holders of European patents"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Background<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The invention at the heart of this referral relates to a hydroponic growing medium comprising mineral fibres and an organic binder, having a phenol content low enough not to impair plant growth, but possessing sufficient physical integrity to allow for long-term use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following the examination procedure, the applicant, Knauf Insulation, was granted a European patent with a narrowed scope, in which the additional features of claim 8 were incorporated into the originally filed claim 1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following opposition proceedings between the patentee and the opponent, Rockwool International, the European patent was maintained in amended form on the basis of the proprietor\u2019s auxiliary request 1E. In this request, claim 1 was reformulated to define a method of growing a plant using the subject matter in dispute. Claim 1 also incorporates the additional features of claims 7 and 11 of the granted patent and specifies, in particular, how the organic binder is obtained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Following this decision, both the opponent and the patentee filed an appeal. In its statement of grounds of appeal, the opponent maintained that auxiliary request 1E, which was submitted late during the oral proceedings, should not have been admitted, and that claim 1 does not comply with Article 84 EPC, due to paragraphs [0013] and [0016] of the amended description, which have not been amended and broaden the nature of the organic binder beyond the limitations of claim 1. The Opposition Division had acknowledged at first instance that these paragraphs were not \u2018drafted in the best possible<\/em> way\u2019, but had dismissed the issue by referring to decision G 3\/14, as these paragraphs were already present in the granted patent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the appeal proceedings, the patentee maintained that the description did not need to be further amended, but subsequently, at the oral proceedings, submitted a description in which paragraphs [0013] and [0016] \u2013 which had given rise to the inconsistency raised by the opponent \u2013 had been deleted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In decision T697\/22, the Board of Appeal held that auxiliary request 1E was admissible, and that the subject-matter of claim 1 was patentable within the meaning of Articles 54 EPC and 56 EPC. The Board of Appeal concludes that the amended description was submitted too late and, consequently, cannot be admitted under Article 13(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (RPCR). Furthermore, the Board of Appeal confirms that auxiliary request 1E does indeed introduce an inconsistency between the binder defined in claim 1 and that described in paragraphs [0013] and [0016] (Reason 10.5 of the decision).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, if the introduction of this inconsistency contravenes Article 84 EPC, the patent should be revoked; otherwise, the patent should be maintained in amended form. As the Board of Appeal has identified two divergent lines of case law leading to contradictory conclusions, it submits the following questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. If the claims of a European patent are amended during opposition proceedings or opposition-appeal proceedings, and the amendment introduces an inconsistency between the amended claims and the description of the patent, is it necessary, to comply with the requirements of the EPC, to adapt the description to the amended claims so as to remove the inconsistency?<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, which requirement(s) of the EPC necessitate(s) such an adaptation?<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Would the answer to questions 1 and 2 be different if the claims of a European patent application are amended during examination proceedings or examination-appeal proceedings, and the amendment introduces an inconsistency between the amended claims and the description of the patent application?<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Amicus Curiae<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The significance of these questions for intellectual property practitioners and European patent holders is illustrated by the large number of amici curiae<\/em> who have submitted a written submission (40) and the diversity of the parties involved, in terms of their structure: professional organisations, European patent attorneys (individuals or groups), companies or geographical origin (European, international, American and Japanese parties in particular).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
    \n

    A consensus appears to have emerged in favour of a negative answer to the first question, with 31 negative responses, representing 77 per cent of the total. Among the arguments put forward are: the undue burden that would be placed on the patent proprietor and the costs incurred in preparing amended descriptions; the risks associated with adding new subject-matter or failing to meet the requirement for sufficient description; the relaxation of the terminology used in the Travaux Pr\u00e9paratoires to the EPC (the<\/em> expression \u2018fully<\/em> supported\u2019\u2014whichwas ultimately retained as \u2018supported\u2019 in Article 84 EPC) in favour of a broader interpretation of the concept of \u2018support\u2019, the absence of legal risk, insofar as the claims would be clear in themselves, or the specific nature of this practice of the European Patent Office (EPO), the only major office that requires a bilateral correspondence between the claims and the description.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

    \n
    \"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

    Conversely, contributions arguing for the need to adapt the description highlight the legal uncertainty arising from the divergent practices of the various courts in the Contracting States and the challenge for the EPO in ensuring it does not grant patents with ambiguous scope, the apparent incompatibility between the recent decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal G1\/24 and the persistence of inconsistencies in the description, and the fact that the claims are supported by the description only in the absence of such inconsistencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Contributions arguing that the requirement for adaptation is excessive also highlight the lack of consensus in case law regarding the legal basis for this requirement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This lack of consensus is evident from the contributions arguing in favour of the need to adapt the description. Among the six legal bases proposed, reference is made to Article 84 EPC, but also to Article 69 EPC and the Protocol on its Interpretation, Articles 82, 53 and 52(2), and Rules 42(1)(c) and 48(1)(c) EPC. Thus, no definitive answer appeared to emerge, should the first question be answered in the affirmative. The answer to the third question seems to raise greater consensus. Whilst two contributions emphasised that this question should be inadmissible, as it has no direct impact on the decision in Case T 697\/22, all contributions that have addressed the question agree that the same provisions should be applied during the examination procedure, pursuant to Article 101(3) EPC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Preliminary opinion<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    In his preliminary opinion published on 11 March 2026, the President of the EPO proceeds from the premise that there are inconsistencies which result in non-compliance with the EPC, and inconsistencies which do not result in such non-compliance. In the former case, and in line with the prevailing case law, the requirements of Article 84 EPC would not be met. The divergent line of case law, and in particular decision T 56\/21, considers that Article 84 EPC requires claims to be supported by the description, and that undescribed subject-matter cannot be claimed, but does not require the description to be limited to the claimed subject-matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The President of the EPO considers that the conclusions of that decision are inconsistent with the reasoning in decision G1\/24, which stated that reference should always be made to the description when interpreting the claims. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Oral proceedings<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The same lines of argument were put forward during the oral proceedings held on 8 May 2026. Whilst the opponent and the patentee shared the view that the introduction of inconsistencies did not require any amendment to the description, the President of the EPO emphasised the EPO\u2019s particular responsibility towards the Member States, and the fact that the description and the claims must form a single, coherent concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Decision G1\/25<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Issued on 3 September 2026, Decision G1\/25 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal does not appear to align itself unilaterally with either of the two divergent lines of case law. However, it dashed the hopes of the amicus curiae<\/em> that the requirement to adapt the description would be abolished or, failing that, significantly relaxed. Indeed, the answer to the first question is as follows: if the claims of a European patent or application are amended and the amendment introduces an inconsistency between the amended claims and the description (or drawings), it is necessary to adapt the description only if, and to the extent that, this inconsistency results in non-compliance with the requirements of the EPC (Reason 43).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In response to the second question, the Enlarged Board ruled out the existence of a single legal basis requiring the description to be adapted in all circumstances. The legal basis is the specific provision of the EPC which is not complied with due to the inconsistency (Reason 49). Articles 52 to 57, 76(1), 83, 84, 123(2) and 123(3) EPC are expressly cited in this regard (Order<\/em> section of the decision).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Finally, regarding the third question, the Enlarged Board answered in the negative. The interpretative role of the description does not depend on the stage of the proceedings. There is therefore no reason to treat the examination procedure and the opposition proceedings differently (Reasons 13 to 15).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In determining the scope of the duty to adapt, the Enlarged Board of Appeal draws on the principles of interpreting claims as the result of a unified process of reading the claims, the description and, where applicable, the drawings (\u2018holistic approach\u2019<\/em>) set out in decision G1\/24 (G1\/25: Reasons 7 to 10). Interestingly, it provides a definition of \u2018inconsistency\u2019, a key term in the decision: an inconsistency exists where one or more teachings in the description suggest an interpretation of the claim that is incompatible with its apparent meaning, and where this incompatibility \u2018cannot readily<\/em> be<\/em> resolved\u2019 by applying the principles of G1\/24 (G1\/25: Reason 18). The Enlarged Board specifies that such an inconsistency persists if a person skilled in the art, reading the claim in the light of the description and the drawings, would be left in real doubt as to the meaning of the claim (Reason 19).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Furthermore, the Enlarged Board expressly states that an inconsistency is not established merely because the description contains technical teachings, examples or embodiments that do not fall within the scope of the claim. The EPC does not require the description to be adapted for the sole purpose of achieving purely formal consistency between the claims and the description (Reasons 20, 22, 34).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Implications and consequences for applicants and patent proprietors<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Decision G1\/25 provides significant clarification regarding the adaptation of the description; however, it also presents new strategic challenges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Firstly, this decision could put an end to the automatic and standardised adaptation of the description. Requirements, particularly from examination divisions, aimed at systematically deleting unclaimed embodiments may now be challenged. Any objection of this kind must be expressly linked to a specific provision of the EPC whose criteria are not met due to the presence of the disputed passage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Adapting the description could become an exercise in legal and technical consistency that proves perilous for applicants and patent proprietors.The Enlarged Board gives, in particular, the example of a limited claim to overcome an objection of lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC): if elements of the description continue to set out the teaching or the technical effects of the claim prior to the amendments in such a way as to create a conflict with the demonstration of inventive step, that passage must be deleted or neutralised (reason 38). A thorough review of the descriptions of technical advantages is therefore preferable to prevent them from contradicting the elements of inventive step. It now remains to be seen what weight the courts dealing with such amended patents (national courts or the Unified Patent Court) will attach to these amendments to the description. From a procedural perspective, it is also worth noting that the Enlarged Board of Appeal encourages the adaptation of the description to be dealt with during the appeal proceedings rather than being referred back to the first instance (Reason 47).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Adapting the description should no longer be regarded merely as a formality to be completed in order to obtain a patent; rather, it is of such importance that it may prove critical for applicants, particularly when interpreting the claims whilst exercising their rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Regimbeau\u2019s patent attorneys are on hand to advise you and determine the best strategy for adapting the description, whatever your technical field of activity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Background The invention at the heart of this referral relates to a hydroponic growing medium comprising mineral fibres and an organic binder, having a phenol content low enough not to...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":0,"template":"","tags":[1291,718],"class_list":["post-29774","insight","type-insight","status-publish","hentry","tag-patents-2-en","tag-opposition"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nG 1\/25: Towards a definitive clarification of the obligation to adapt the description to amended claims \u2013 Implications and consequences for applicants and holders of European patents - Regimbeau<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/en\/insight\/g-1-25-towards-a-definitive-clarification-of-the-obligation-to-adapt-the-description-to-amended-claims-implications-and-consequences-for-applicants-and-holders-of-european-patents\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G 1\/25: Towards a definitive clarification of the obligation to adapt the description to amended claims \u2013 Implications and consequences for applicants and holders of European patents - Regimbeau\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Background The invention at the heart of this referral relates to a hydroponic growing medium comprising mineral fibres and an organic binder, having a phenol content low enough not to...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/en\/insight\/g-1-25-towards-a-definitive-clarification-of-the-obligation-to-adapt-the-description-to-amended-claims-implications-and-consequences-for-applicants-and-holders-of-european-patents\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Regimbeau\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-09-16T12:27:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/amicus-curiae-GB.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"406\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"341\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regimbeau.eu\\\/en\\\/insight\\\/g-1-25-towards-a-definitive-clarification-of-the-obligation-to-adapt-the-description-to-amended-claims-implications-and-consequences-for-applicants-and-holders-of-european-patents\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regimbeau.eu\\\/en\\\/insight\\\/g-1-25-towards-a-definitive-clarification-of-the-obligation-to-adapt-the-description-to-amended-claims-implications-and-consequences-for-applicants-and-holders-of-european-patents\\\/\",\"name\":\"G 1\\\/25: Towards a definitive clarification of the obligation to adapt the description to amended claims \u2013 Implications and consequences for applicants and holders of European patents - Regimbeau\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regimbeau.eu\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regimbeau.eu\\\/en\\\/insight\\\/g-1-25-towards-a-definitive-clarification-of-the-obligation-to-adapt-the-description-to-amended-claims-implications-and-consequences-for-applicants-and-holders-of-european-patents\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regimbeau.eu\\\/en\\\/insight\\\/g-1-25-towards-a-definitive-clarification-of-the-obligation-to-adapt-the-description-to-amended-claims-implications-and-consequences-for-applicants-and-holders-of-european-patents\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regimbeau.eu\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/amicus-curiae-GB.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-15T15:10:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-16T12:27:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regimbeau.eu\\\/en\\\/insight\\\/g-1-25-towards-a-definitive-clarification-of-the-obligation-to-adapt-the-description-to-amended-claims-implications-and-consequences-for-applicants-and-holders-of-european-patents\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/regimbeau.eu\\\/en\\\/insight\\\/g-1-25-towards-a-definitive-clarification-of-the-obligation-to-adapt-the-description-to-amended-claims-implications-and-consequences-for-applicants-and-holders-of-european-patents\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regimbeau.eu\\\/en\\\/insight\\\/g-1-25-towards-a-definitive-clarification-of-the-obligation-to-adapt-the-description-to-amended-claims-implications-and-consequences-for-applicants-and-holders-of-european-patents\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regimbeau.eu\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/amicus-curiae-GB.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regimbeau.eu\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/amicus-curiae-GB.png\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regimbeau.eu\\\/en\\\/insight\\\/g-1-25-towards-a-definitive-clarification-of-the-obligation-to-adapt-the-description-to-amended-claims-implications-and-consequences-for-applicants-and-holders-of-european-patents\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Accueil\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regimbeau.eu\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G 1\\\/25: Towards a definitive clarification of the obligation to adapt the description to amended claims \u2013 Implications and consequences for applicants and holders of European patents\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regimbeau.eu\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regimbeau.eu\\\/\",\"name\":\"Regimbeau\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/regimbeau.eu\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"G 1\/25: Towards a definitive clarification of the obligation to adapt the description to amended claims \u2013 Implications and consequences for applicants and holders of European patents - Regimbeau","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/en\/insight\/g-1-25-towards-a-definitive-clarification-of-the-obligation-to-adapt-the-description-to-amended-claims-implications-and-consequences-for-applicants-and-holders-of-european-patents\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G 1\/25: Towards a definitive clarification of the obligation to adapt the description to amended claims \u2013 Implications and consequences for applicants and holders of European patents - Regimbeau","og_description":"Background The invention at the heart of this referral relates to a hydroponic growing medium comprising mineral fibres and an organic binder, having a phenol content low enough not to...","og_url":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/en\/insight\/g-1-25-towards-a-definitive-clarification-of-the-obligation-to-adapt-the-description-to-amended-claims-implications-and-consequences-for-applicants-and-holders-of-european-patents\/","og_site_name":"Regimbeau","article_modified_time":"2026-09-16T12:27:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":406,"height":341,"url":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/amicus-curiae-GB.png","type":"image\/png"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/en\/insight\/g-1-25-towards-a-definitive-clarification-of-the-obligation-to-adapt-the-description-to-amended-claims-implications-and-consequences-for-applicants-and-holders-of-european-patents\/","url":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/en\/insight\/g-1-25-towards-a-definitive-clarification-of-the-obligation-to-adapt-the-description-to-amended-claims-implications-and-consequences-for-applicants-and-holders-of-european-patents\/","name":"G 1\/25: Towards a definitive clarification of the obligation to adapt the description to amended claims \u2013 Implications and consequences for applicants and holders of European patents - Regimbeau","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/en\/insight\/g-1-25-towards-a-definitive-clarification-of-the-obligation-to-adapt-the-description-to-amended-claims-implications-and-consequences-for-applicants-and-holders-of-european-patents\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/en\/insight\/g-1-25-towards-a-definitive-clarification-of-the-obligation-to-adapt-the-description-to-amended-claims-implications-and-consequences-for-applicants-and-holders-of-european-patents\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/amicus-curiae-GB.png","datePublished":"2026-09-15T15:10:59+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-16T12:27:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/en\/insight\/g-1-25-towards-a-definitive-clarification-of-the-obligation-to-adapt-the-description-to-amended-claims-implications-and-consequences-for-applicants-and-holders-of-european-patents\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/en\/insight\/g-1-25-towards-a-definitive-clarification-of-the-obligation-to-adapt-the-description-to-amended-claims-implications-and-consequences-for-applicants-and-holders-of-european-patents\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/en\/insight\/g-1-25-towards-a-definitive-clarification-of-the-obligation-to-adapt-the-description-to-amended-claims-implications-and-consequences-for-applicants-and-holders-of-european-patents\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/amicus-curiae-GB.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/amicus-curiae-GB.png"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/en\/insight\/g-1-25-towards-a-definitive-clarification-of-the-obligation-to-adapt-the-description-to-amended-claims-implications-and-consequences-for-applicants-and-holders-of-european-patents\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Accueil","item":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G 1\/25: Towards a definitive clarification of the obligation to adapt the description to amended claims \u2013 Implications and consequences for applicants and holders of European patents"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/#website","url":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/","name":"Regimbeau","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/insight\/29774","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/insight"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/insight"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/insight\/29774\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":29779,"href":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/insight\/29774\/revisions\/29779"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29774"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/regimbeau.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29774"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}