D 2025: first impressions?
To all who sat the D-paper today:
What are your first
impressions with respect to this year's D-paper? Any general or
specific comments?
How did this year's D-paper compare
to the earlier online D papers of 2022 - 2025?
Were the D1 questions and the D2
part similar as to its subjects and difficulty as the last few years?
Did the split of the paper into three
parts influence your exam? If so, how? How did you use the
breaks? Could you forget about the part you just finished and free your
mind for the next part in each break? Were the breaks long enough? Did you
also take any unscheduled breaks?
Were
the topics well balanced in the D1-part? Was the balance
between EPC and PCT right for you? Any substantive topics in D1 (e.g., partial
priority; disclaimers; plants; double patenting)?
Any
(expected or unexpected) questions about recent legal changes in D1?
Which
of the D1 Questions did you consider particularly difficult, and which
relatively 'easy'? Did you skip any D1-questions? If so, why (e.g., too
difficult, allocating the time for another question, no time left)?
Did
you use the legal texts that were available online (EPO legal texts, PCT
Applicant's Guide, PCT Treaty)? Which, how?
Were
the legal issues in the D2-part well doable? Amount of
information? Complexity of the inventions/subject-matter? Any particular
difficult issues?
Did
you experience any technical difficulties during the exam? How and how fast
were they resolved? Did you use the widget to contact the invigilator?
Please
be reminded that, if you wish to lodge a complaint pursuant to
point I.8. of the Instructions
to Candidates concerning
the conduct of the examination , you must do so at the latest by
the end of the day on which the paper concerned takes place, by filling in the
dedicated form on the EQE website. The Form for paper D is
(only) available on 11.03.2025, 16:45 - 23:59, CET.
The paper and our answers
We
aim to post the core our (provisional) answers shortly after the exam in
separate blog posts (one for D Part 1 and one for D Part 2), as soon as
possible after we have received a copy of the papers, preferably in all
three languages. Should you have a copy, please send it to any of our
tutors or to training@deltapatents.com.
Please be reminded that you can view and print/download copy of your exam
answer after the exam, via the eye below the "1. Paper"-icon in the
bottom left part of the flow window of the respective flow. (It may not be
available immediately after the official end of the (part of the) paper, but
only 30-60 minutes later.) The paper itself cannot be downloaded (unless you
copied it in full into your exam answer).
We
look forward to your comments!
Comments are welcome in any official EPO
language, not just English. So, comments in German and French
are also very welcome!
Please do not post your comments
anonymously - it is allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather
clumsy ("Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 11-03-2025 19:20"), whereas
using your real name or a nickname is more personal, more interesting and
makes a more attractive conversation. You do not need to log in or make an account -
it is OK to just put your (nick) name at the end of your post.
Active discussion is appreciated;
inappropriate content (non-respectful, offensive, impolite) will, if spotted,
be removed by the system or by the blog team.
Please post your comments as
to first impressions and general remarks to
the D-paper as a whole, and to the two parts (D1 and D2) as
whole part to this blog.
Please post substantial comments/questions with
respect to specific D1 questions in our upcoming D1-blogpost and substantial comments/questions with
respect to D2 specifically in our upcoming D2-blogpost. Thanks!
Felt good - did not have time to check my answers in the end so I probably missed some aspects. But keeping my fingers crossed.
ReplyDeleteSame here. I hope to get 45 but it's gonna be hard
DeleteI weep for anyone who didn't know which OJ reference they could find the ADA requirements in.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I panicked and generally lost a lot of time on this paper. D1-1 in particular was rough as the questions seemed to largely relate to things I hadn't come across before. I can only hope that my desperate searching was enough, though I can already think of some elements I missed that were easy marks.
D2 - A tonne of matters and events to review, but it seemed like in the end it broke down into fairly manageable chunks since it was essentially two unrelated topics. I was very rushed towards the end (largely because I thought I had plenty of time and wasted a bunch of it early in the paper), but it didn't feel too awful.
Agree... I remember first time I came across AAD during study - took me ages to find. :')
DeleteI cited ADA and AAD as for example “ADA 7.4.1” etc and did not specify the OJ. Does this count as legal basis, or will points be subtracted for missing legal basis?
DeleteCouldn't tell you I'm afraid. I wasn't sure how to cite it so I just took the title of the page (which might be wrong) I found, so cited as "Per Supplementary publication 2, OJ 2024, Annex A.1 to the ADA (Henceforth, "Annex A.1")" and then had each thing I cited from there as e.g. Annex A.1 5.1
DeleteBased on what I've seen in other materials, your form Georgios is consistent with most of them.
Assignments took forever and I lost about 20 minutes for no reason. My friend said the same thing. Hopefully EPO is aware of the problem.
ReplyDeleteForever to load*
DeleteIf you want to file a complaint, you'll have to do it today. Then you can be sure the EPO will be aware.
DeleteI filed a complaint about this already. Glad to see it seems to not just have been me (not glad that it messed with our exams, but, you know...). I asked them to compensate me for 15 minutes of exam time, ~4 marks, since I estimate the three assignments together took about 15 minutes to load.
DeleteAre you referring to the time to load (in the assignment window) or time to open in a separate window. For other papers: refreshing helps.
DeleteI complained too. Is it possible to be compensated point-wise, regarding this issue?
DeleteDitto regarding slowness of response issues. Assignments could not be read/marked for quite a while. Complaint filed
DeleteI filed a complaint - firstly, due to the paper not showing up, and secondly, due to the search function not being enabled. I requested 4 points compensation for each aspect, 8 points in total.
DeleteDid ya'll file the complaint by email (EQE Secretariat)?
DeleteWe can request points? How does the complaint system work?
DeleteI tried to send an email to helpdesk but it returns delivery error, as though the email address doesn't exist.
DeleteI sent an email to helpdesk.
Delete@ All the anonymous and Paperdcut: there's a form linked here: https://www.epo.org/en/learning/eqe-epac/european-qualifying-examination-eqe under the tab EQE Online for filing complaints. As part of the form, they ask what compensation you are looking for.
DeleteThanks Johanna. Just did that. When and how do you suppose the ones who filed a complaint will be updated? Via email or must this wait until July?
DeleteFor all who ask for the complaint form: go to eqe.org and scroll down to the hidden content (retarded design) called EQE online and reveal hidden links with +
DeleteThere are all forms links to the complaint form :)
How will we be updated about the complaints filed?
DeleteDear I had the same problem. I lost about 15 minutes in paper D2 to charge the paper in a sperate window in order to copy and past and doing F search, also using refresh botton was impossible to charge a patent in a quick manner! I asked to invigilator that said me to be patient! In D1-1 and D1-2 I was not able to charge paper in a separate window I used the smal window to read the questions, This problem for me was big because a lost time and also I got nervous.
DeleteGenerally felt good, although an examiner somewhere is taking sadistic joy in setting a question all about ADA requirements.
ReplyDeletePart 2 seemed gigantic with lots of moving parts but boiled down nicely at the end, I think.
Surprised not to see a token UPC question!
Had a good flow on D1-1. Ran out of time in D1-2. To be able to finish on time in the D exam, it has to be some "familiarity" to get a good flow. The subject for the two questions in D-1-2 was automatic debiting and PCT demand, two subject which are not common occurrence in everyday practice. Thus, it needed some more careful "looking up", and time management was lost. Feels a bit frustrating because I felt I could have finished Q5 in D1-2 if I would have some extra 10 minutes or something.
ReplyDeleteFor DII, I felt it was quite similar to previous exams. Nothing surprising. However, I didn't anticipate exactly how stressful it could be. (Fingers cross I didn't have any brain farts). I appreciated that the questions were more clearly formulated than last year. As always, there were some expected struggle with the confusing invention descriptions, but the provided abbreviations helped to navigate.
Is that impossible to see my own copy ?! Thanks
ReplyDeleteIt may take a while before it comes up (say like 30 minutes)
DeleteI just downloaded my own answers. They are reachable in WiseFlow today Wednesday.
DeleteFelt alright overall! I was very short on time for both parts of D1 and definitely missed some easy marks by not having to to reference everything. D2 felt better time-wise, even though there were more specific situations than usual - my timeline was way more cluttered than for any of the previous exams I prepared with.
ReplyDeleteI also didn't realize that they had made (at least seemingly, unless I missed something) sensible divisions for subject-matters A, B, C and kept referring to them as "BSC+A" etc., and was too scared of missing something to go back and change after realizing that.
I am very uncertain of the the invalid priority to EP-B in part 2 would affect the opposition proceedings in any other way than simply making EP-B relevant as 54(3) prior art.
when EP-B becomes prior art to B and C, Bikey will be free to sell and produce D and E because D is covered by C and E is covered by C and B.
DeleteIntroducing new ground for opposition is however a tricky one, I adivsed to file proceedgins at national court, and inform EPO to stay opp proceedings. This was probably wrong becase it is only allowed when opp is admissible. I think the correct answer would have been to file it in the hope that EPO examines it at its own motion.
I argued that EP-B is prima facie relevant for novelty and hence would be admitted as evidence and a new ground added, and moreover that we just became aware of the fact last weekend, so we couldn't have submitted the argument earlier.
DeleteI did the same as you Johanna, but did not think about adding the part where we just became aware of it. I don't think instituting proceedings in a national court would make a difference.
DeleteBecause of the length of each part, it felt like I did almost 100% good on the parts I had time to finish and almost 0% of the parts I didn't have time to properly treat. No middle grounds.
ReplyDeleteI was shit scared in D2 when I realized the insane amount of subject matter. I was super glad at the end when I discovered that I could get away from only discussing improvements for one invention.
Thankfully i didn iclude some improvements already when i was discussing the situation as is for the other invention... i hope it counts!
I concluded that the client would be free to produce and sell both prototypes after the improvements, while this was not possible for prototype 2 before the improvements,
ReplyDeleteand there is no way to prevent Selle from selling and producing the cube variant, while it is possible to prevent them from selling and producing the sphere variant, but only after the improvements.
Anyone else?
Was your improvement w.r.t. prototype 2 to suggest cross licensing with EP-B, and the improvement w.r.t. Selle to pursue a patent covering O? If so, I think we came to the same conclusions!
DeleteNo, I referred to T 656/96 for a novelty attack on EP-ABC and stated that it should be maintained in amended form, where it has only claim 2 left (wire)
DeleteAbout Selle, yes, I believe a divisional application to pursue a patent covering O should be possible
DeleteAh - different routes to the same conclusion. I thought the priority claim for C could be valid from IT-A through the essentiality test, and that we could cross-licence EP-B to allow everyone to be happy.
DeleteI feel I may have messed that one up a bit, but thought they wouldn't have two broader disclosures vs a narrow priority disclosure in the same paper. Overthinking!
I also advised to file a second divisional based on EP-DIV, covering O. With such an application we would be able to stop Selle for that prototype, but not for the other.
DeleteI did not suggest any cross-license since none of the competitor patents were relevant for our planned activities after the improvements, if I was correct in which improvements could be made.
Reached teh same conclusion (before and after re: Paperdcut's comments). Slightly messed up the Selle position as I interpreted the brackets to mean the type of rubber, not shorthand for the shape :-(
Deletewas adding claim to O in EP-DIV was an option?
Delete@Ada, no, since EP-DIV is already published along with its search report. Can't add claims to unsearched matter at that point.
Delete@Johanna: note that Rule 137(2) DOES allow to add a dependent claim as amendment of own motion also after publication of the SR, together with the response to the search opinion (so until 6m after publ of the search report), which will then be the basis for examination
DeleteADA was expected was not this kind! wufff
ReplyDeleteI expected ADA so I came prepared, free points!
ReplyDeleteWhat is the point though? Is this really what should be tested?
DeleteThe AAD is explicitly part of the EQE syllabus: Rule 22(1)(f) IPREE current EQE. Questions thereto are regularly on paper D, so should not have come as a too big surprise. Note that more than 95% of the payments to the EPO are done by (direct or automatic)?debit oder)
DeleteBut indeed, what was tested here was quite basic and the design/style of the AAD question did not have the depth and complexity of usual D1 Questions. Nevertheless, I expect that the average score will be low, as candidates consider ADA and AAD Questions usually difficult.
It was sneaky of them to use Taiwan as a jurisdiction of interest for D2, since it's not a PCT state...
ReplyDeleteNice catch! I completely missed that part
DeleteYeah, only a national filing was possible i guess, Or via CHina maybe? I am not sure
DeleteDoes it make any difference to the validity of priority claim to EP-B that the transfer of rights was registered at the EPO in 2020 only (so after filing of EP-ABC)?
ReplyDelete"According to J 5/79 (OJ 1980, 71), no entries can be made in the Register prior to publication of the European patent application (Art. 127 EPC 1973 – unchanged in that respect)."
DeleteAccordingly, the fact that it was registered in 2020 doesn't mean that it wasn't in effect before 2020
I sincerely hope not. I spent a good 20 minutes thinking about it and going through case law, but I ended up concluding that the relevant effect of the transfer being registered is for the new proprietor/applicant to act before the EPO regarding the patent. So AA would not have had the right to do anything related to EP-B that requires being the applicant before 2020, but the priority right belonged to him from when the assignment was signed. Transfer of rights seems to be exclusively national law, and there is no reason why national law should be constrained by when something was entered in the EPO registry.
DeleteI thought this was them testing the rebuttable presumption of valid priority which is rebuttable in case of bad faith behaviour which was the case here. So I cited G1/22, G2/22 and said that filing a declaration by the priority applicant that the priority rights belonged to him was sufficient rebuttal.
DeleteSame as D here.
DeleteI reasoned that this would push you to the rebuttable presumption of G 1/21 in the as is situation. If the transfer was known on filing, I would start doubting on the rebuttable presumption.
DeleteI was (and still am) absolutely confused about this part of D2. I found in the Visser about Rule 22(3) case law on the "only when", which could be taken to imply that the transfer was not effective in front of the EPO until 2020, if "register" was intended as fulfilling the requirement to register the transfer (in line with R22), rather than physically recorded in the register.
DeleteI argued about justifying the late filing as well, but I don't think this should hold up: from my experience, transfer agreements are published on the register, so I am not sure how we can say that we "just" found out last week.
Re G1/22 it also says that the situation that matter is the agreement (possibly implicit) at the date of filing, and that later developments do not count.
Can Alessi really just say something six years after the transfer about not having given consent to rebut the presumption of validity? Developments after the filing date do not count (G1/22 reasons 109). In my initial draft, I was suggesting to also initiate national proceedings to show the abusive character of ep ABC filing, but I modified the answer to leave the national filing as a back-up position (It seemed too complicated, taking into account that the protocol on recognition would not be applicable, and other EU regulations and treaties on acknowledgement of national decisions would have to be used (which, I am not even sure are part of the eqe curriculum).
Further to the above:
DeleteThe decisions concerning R. 22(3) EPC cited in the Visser are T 656/98 r.3.5 and 4.1 and G 1/12 r. 45.1. Quoting from the Visser: "The express wording "only when" of R. 22(3) makes any earlier date mentioned in the text of an assignment and effective between the parties to the assignment irrelevant for the EPO. Hence, a new owner is only entitled to file an appeal when the transfer has been recorded with the EPO".
The wording of the paper at [13] is "This transfer was registered with the EPO in 2020". So, I understand this wording to mean that the transfer agreement was only presented to the EPO in 2020, after EP-ABC was filed. By the decisions above, the date of the transfer of 02.05.2019 is, vis-a-vis the EPO, irrelevant.
Because the priority right is a right which has to be autonomously determined by the EPO (G 1/22), vis-a-vis the EPO this right was not transferred before 2020 (R22(3)). G 1/22 goes even further, and states (R. 111 "Like the priority entitlement in general (see above points 85 f), the presumption of its existence and the rebuttal of this presumption is subject to the autonomous law of the EPC only. Consequently, there is no room for the application of national laws on legal presumptions and their rebuttal.") If the EPC only matters, then the priority was effectively transferred in 2020, together with EP-B? Or would for the priority count the date on the agreement, but not for the application as an object of property in view of R 22(3)? Is r. 86 of G 1/22 the basis for treating the transfer of priority right different than the transfer of an application, even though the two, in the present case, originate from the same act? "The autonomous requirements for the valid transfer of priority rights should not be stricter than national rules applicable to the transfer of priority rights or other property rights. "
With respect to rebutting the strong presumption of validity of the priority right, still the Visser (p. 206, penultimate paragraph): "probably a declaration of the priority applicant that they did not consent to the subsequent filing will be sufficient as a rebuttal". However, they do not cite any case law, point of G 1/22, nor anything to support this statement (cf. "probably"). I am also not aware of any subsequent decision in which this presumption was successfully rebutted.
Re the national proceeding(s), the legal consequence would be that Alessi becomes entitled to the part of B of EP-ABC (A99(4)), in respect of the countr(ies) in which the national proceeding(s) have been initiated. Once Alessi becomes entitled to the part B of EP-ABC with respect to, e.g., Italy, he would have interest in the priority being valid (otherwise, the part he just acquired would be invalid). Can the priority be invalid for Campagnelli and valid for Alessi? Again, I am not aware of any decision on this constellation of facts, even though this could be a "balanced" approach for justice (but EP-B would have to withdraw at least the designations of the countries in which EP-ABC(B) has been acquired by Alessi, otherwise that would be double-patenting upon grant of EP-B).
The more I think about it, the more I have the impression the question, on this point of the priority, was asking us to speculate on case law developments which have not yet been tackled by the Boards.
Gb, I do not follow your comments on national proceedings.The paper didn't indicate that the invention was 'stolen' from Alessio. It simply stated that rights for ep-b were transferred to him after filing. Why would this mean they're also entitled to part of ep-abc?
DeletePerhaps I'm missing something.
Anonymous, I read the last sentence of [13] with the assignment to "all rights" (including the right to priority) as including the right to the European patent for the invention claimed/disclosed in EP-B (Article 60 EPC). My reading is that by filing EP-ABC, Campagnelli is "taking back" the right to invention B. If the claiming of the priority is an act of bad faith that may justify rebuttal of the presumption of G1/22, so is Campagnelli's inclusion of EP-B in ep-abc, an invention for which he had transferred the right to Alessi, which may justify the national proceedings to take back the part of B of Ep-ABC.
DeleteFor the rebuttable presumption there could also be the argument that it should not apply in this case, as the former applicant did not need Alessi's support to file the application - Campagnelli knew of the application and being the registered applicant for EP-B until 2020, the office will have provided the R.53 certified copy without any problem. But then, waiting over seven months to provide the transfer documents to the EPO ([13], transfer registered with EPO in 2020) was also Alessi's choice , which may indicate support for EP-ABC, at the time of filing.
So, I am not sure if national proceedings would help or even be needed to demonstrate that the behaviour was abusive: the filing of EP-ABC must have been known to Alessi in these six years from the register, and he chose not to act, which may be seen as the implied agreement of the inventor/ priority owner to keep the priority valid.
I wrote this exam in German and I think it should.
DeleteImho the German version of R. 22 (3) EPC quite clearly states that the transfer of right only becomes valid AFTER the transfer of right has been proven to the EPO.
From the wording of the exam I assumed that this proof had been done in 2020.
(sorry for my bad english)
No, It does not make any difference to the validity of priority claim to EP-B that the transfer of rights was registered at the EPO in 2020 only,
DeleteSee G1/22.
Also more that Rule 22 does not apply to transfer and registration of the priority right, but to those of the application. The two are different and separate rights, see established case law and its confirmation in G 1/22.
The notary declaration and registration of the priority rights are to be used in reburring the presumption of entitlement to the priority right - G 1/22.
It is recommend to read the complete decision G 1/22, as the very brief citation of it in the Guidelines may not be sufficiënt to understand all aspects.
C'était très long, j'ai trouvé, mais comparable aux épreuves des années précédentes. Pas de choses surprenantes, sauf peut-être la question entière sur le RPA. J'ai trouvé la base légale en même temps que la question, ce qui n'est pas recommandé. Mais cette question semblait assez simple. J'ai eu le temps de tout faire, mais pas de me relire . Donc difficile de dire la qualité des réponses.
ReplyDeleteYep I used the same argument.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, it took about 20 minutes to load the D2 assignment in a separate tab and to use the search function. I lost quite a bit of time because of that.
ReplyDeleteApparently, lots of people had the same issue during the flows
DeleteYes same :( The very first step is to find all the dates and arrange them. Losing so much time in the beginning affected the whole paper. It seems a lot of candidates suffered from this issue and so it is best to file a complaint today itself before the small window of of opportunity closes!
DeleteIt is surprising that these load problems happen again this year. They hapended in earlier years as well to some extent, but that was often fixed and -I assume- that the system providers from Wiseflow then also investigates the reasons and found the root cause. So stange that his happens again. Hope you will be free of these issues in the other Main papers , the same for those that sit the Foundation.
DeleteDid it help if you used Refresh in Wiseflow?
I didnt have enough time for D1.1 and D1.2 and also feel either all points or no points. Hopefully D2 will save me.
ReplyDeleteAre you me?? Lol
DeleteYes me too, 30 minutes to be able to see the English version of D1-1
ReplyDeleteI also couldnt load D2 in a separate tab for quite some time.
ReplyDeleteStruggling to find the complaint form - where is it located? Thanks!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.epo.org/en/learning/eqe-epac/european-qualifying-examination-eqe
DeleteWhere can we file a complaint? I cant find the form.
ReplyDeleteScroll down on the page at the above link and check under 'EQE Online'. There is a specific form for paper D
DeleteDid anybody cite T 2558/18 regarding qustion 3 in part D1-1? Unfortunately I ran out of time and only found it in the break :D
ReplyDeleteYes
DeleteAccording to Visser, this is the one that applies to said situation.
DeleteAwwww. I didn't find that one, I just found the GL section about it. I hope that's worth at least, like, a fraction of a mark.
DeleteIt’s on p. 617 (middle of the page) in the latest edition of Visser
DeleteIt is recommend to always check the EPC Art and Ruies and the Guidelnee first (you can find the relevant sections most easily via your reference books (e.g., via the “Topic-Relared Index to the EPC and PCT” and Hoekstra or Visser), before -if at all…- checking and citing specific case law or the Case Law Book (wherein you also risk to find and use case law that has been superseded and/or that is not followed ).
DeleteYou would have found GL E-XII, 9 quickly and that gives you all information that you need to answer Q.3, incl references to the relevant Rules. You would not have had the complication of interpreting original case law by yourself or relying on the interpretation by authors of annotated legal texts (but just on the “official” interpreterion as given in the Guidelines):
@Matt: I recommend to take a break in the break! Do not use the break to continue to think about the finished part and to work that: you cannot change your answer anymore and you need to reeneegize for the next part!
DeleteAll assignments did not load for quite some time after start of each flow and search function was not enabled.
ReplyDeleteFiled a complaint for the assignment loading issue that happened at the start of each flow and requested 4 points as compensation. I highly suggest everyone who had this problem do the same
ReplyDeleteAssignment didn’t load for any of the flows for at least 10 minutes. It was awful. I filed a complaint. It’s horrible when you’ve spent almost a year in preparation and then something small like that throws your entire technique off.
ReplyDeleteI can absolutely relate to this. I had the same problems and it took me to much time to compensate. In the end I could not finish completely with D1-2 and also D2.
DeleteI had the same problem. However, by clicking on the preview picture of the assignment, a large picture of the respective page of the assignment opened. For D2 it was a little cumbersome, nevertheless better than to wait 10-20 mins to load the pdf.
DeleteAlso camera disturbed be for 5-6 times as if I did something wrong but all I was doing was looking at my notes. So many distractions- loading of assignments, search fxn , and camera etc.
DeletePlease do not post your comments anonymously, but give your name or use a Nick name - that makes communication a lot more easy and more pleasant
DeleteMy concern about the loading problem is that, D2 which contains more pages was loaded longer than D1 shorter parts. If this problem continues, what to do about paper C? Paper C will have an assignment of much more pages than D2, how to do it then?
ReplyDeleteIt is sad that in 2025 one cannot load a PDF of a few KB instantly over Gbit networks. Also sad is that in 2025 they force you to do the exam digitally, but deprive you of all digital helper tools: multiple monitors, side-by-side assignment and answer paper, Liquidated tablet cross-annotations, advanced search tools, access to the Legal Interactive Platform in myEPO to which every Attorney has access to, etc. We are forced still to sift through thousands of book pages for obscure information an examiner found funny to include as a question, only to find that 3000 pages of books fail to contain the unloadable OJ supplementary annex specifying the trick question in an age where AI can find such a reference in seconds. If I don’t know the answer by heart, what difference does it make whether I find it with GPT or sift through yearly published very expensive books under stress and time pressure?? I hope the new EQE changes many things, but I despise this exam for the stress it caused.
DeleteLiquidated = LiquidText of course
DeleteD1 felt similar to last year's exam or even slightly easier.
ReplyDeleteD2 was comparable in terms of content and solutions, but there were two separate subject matters. In hindsight, it would have been better to tackle one first and then move on to the other.
The split of the paper with breaks in between is, in my view, good and necessary. However, it was challenging to stop thinking about the previous part while preparing for the next.
Time was always tight during the exam parts, except for D1-5, where I think I might have missed something.
The topics in D1 were as expected in terms of the PCT/EPC ratio. Fortunately, I had printed the ADA and AAD. D1-4 was a bit confusing, but I definitely managed to score some points there.
Apart from a few printed sheets (calendar, Rfees, EPC/PCT States, ADA, AAD) and my own notes, I relied only on online resources, which worked very well. The PCT-EPO guidelines were particularly helpful.
I also encountered issues opening the questions in a new tab, so I simply used the pop-up view next to the editor, which worked fine.
W.r.t. D2: in our methodology courses, we recommend to first check out the questions before reading the paper. That usually gives you a clear indication as to how to structure your answer and in which order to address the various aspects.
DeleteAlso on this paper, it did: if even suggested to deal with the two separate groups of subject-matter, as they were were addressed in two separate Questions!
Besides the loading issue that a lot of people experienced, I also had issues with warnings popping up that my 'camera detected a face that wasn't mine' if looked down into a book or my notes for more than a few seconds. I have never experienced this before, not during the pre-exam and not in any of the technical tests. It gave me the option to either close the pop-up window or change my camera settings. The first time it popped up I spent quite a while trying to figure out how to continue with the flow without being kicked out as either option seemed risky.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone else experience this?? I filed a complaint for both issues.
I don't know what to do for the next 3 exams with printable parts that I would like to look down to read. I don't have anything on the wall behind me. Any tips would be greatly appreciated!
Yes, I experienced the same problem multiple times, particularly during D1, as I was constantly looking at my notes. I also encountered this issue during the EPAC exam, so it wasn’t new to me. Nonetheless, it was still quite annoying.
DeleteI had the same, at least three times during D1-1 and once more during D1-2 and D2. I contacted the invigilator in the break between D1-1 and D1-2, and was told to ignore the warning as the images were fine. Still, I filed a complaint yesterday, asking as compensation at least not to receive disciplinary measures because of the warnings. It was quite stressful and disturbing, particularly during the first two parts, which were the ones were books were more needed.
DeleteYes, the same happened to me multiple times, probably 2-3 times during each of D1-1 and D1-2, and at least 5 times during D2. It was very annoying and disturbing. I have not filed any complaint for it though and it seems like it's too late now.
DeleteI faced the same issue, although I did not mention that in my complaint..Is there a way this may nonetheless be considered by the markers?
DeleteI experienced the same issue. The pop-up warnings asking me to retake my picture appeared to say at least 15 times during each of the D1.1, D1.2, and D2, significantly disturbing my concentration and slowing me down. Initially, I was worried that these warnings indicated I had unintentionally violated exam conduct rules, which increased my stress and anxiety. I even thought it was a direct action from the invigilator, which discouraged me from seeking clarification through the chat.
DeleteLater, I realized the likely cause was the camera not recognizing my face, as I was frequently looking down at my books and notes. However, I assumed that such a common scenario should have been anticipated by the video proctoring system. This further increased my frustration.
Additionally, loading the questions was consistently slow, taking around 5 minutes each time, and switching between windows often lagged, especially after brief pauses in typing.
Like you, I had never encountered these issues during technical tests or practice sessions. It was extremely stressful and distracting, undoubtedly affecting my performance. Yesterday I filed a formal complaint and requested that these disruptions be fairly considered when marking my exam.
I had the same problem but I didn’t put it in my complaint because I thought I was alone! I had anxiety thinking it would mean a disqualification even though I was constantly in view of the camera. I must’ve had about 12 prompts to retake my image
DeleteAny neutralizations or a compensation of at least 10 points in view of these technical problems and the complaints filed therewith?
ReplyDeleteNot unlikely, provided that you timeline filed a complaint with all required information in sufficiënt detail (so that the Examination Board can assessments whether and how severly you were hit so as to determine the amount of compensation) and that you have participated in a tech test (to show that you prepared well with your system).
DeleteBut almost certainly not if you did not file a complaint of never participated in a tech test.
I had the same problem with the camera warnings, but I tought that the invigilator would contact me if anything was wrong. It was indeed quite annoying. I did not file a complaint about it....maybe it is just that the camera is set to high?
ReplyDeleteI also had the camera problem, and it was particularly annoying during D1-1, though I forgot to mention it in my complaint.
ReplyDeleteI had the same problem with the camera two times in D1-1 and one time in D2. At first I tought that my camera had a problem. Also I had some problem during the charge of the paper in the separate windows in order to copy and past some information or using control F. I had lost 20 min in paper D2. I was not able to find the format for complain and I wrote to segretariat. I'm worried for the other papers. The time is to short and also if there are some problems due to the program I do not how it is possible to do a very good exam.
DeleteSame here.
DeleteThe priority issues in part 2 really hurt my head.
ReplyDeleteIf one signs a contract to transfer ownership in 2019, but it is only registered at the epo in 2020, is the transfer retroactive? It seems like the one of the priority claims hinged on this point. If it is not retroactive, then priority claim was invalid because each patent application had a different applicant.
Accordingly to the guidelines... In T 128/10 the board held that the three requirements under R. 22 EPC in conjunction with R. 85 EPC, as formulated in J 12/00, did not need to be fulfilled at the same time. If they were met on different dates, the transfer would only have effect vis-à-vis the EPO at the date on which all the requirements mentioned above were fulfilled.
But here's where I get even further confused. Even if the priority was invalid the time of filing (i'm still not sure), after 2020 when the registration was submitted to the epo, the subsequent application in the correct name. Does this retroactively fix the faulty priority claim? Or does a new priority decleration need to be filed?
Had the same issue and lost a few minutes wondering about it and looking it up in my reference books. I just kept the EPO out of it, in a sense that there was a notary agreement signed, so in the eyes of a national court this would be enough to get a decision. This decision can then be communicated to the EPO. Additionally, the opp proceedings can also be stayed, since they were admissible, when the EPO is informed about proceedings in a national court, in this case Italy, the place of business of Camp.
DeleteI do not have any ideas but it is possible to have a compensation regarding said kind of problems: camera, paper D2 charged later, without doing complaint?
ReplyDeleteSlow assignment + camera pop-ups seem to be general problems. Would this be something they give general compensation for? In my case I lost 30 minutes on D1-1 because could not open/scroll to the English version of the assignment
ReplyDeleteD2 has more information this year than last years, but it seems much less involved/complex than in recent years. The tricky part seems limited to getting your way through all the information, rather than difficult legal issues.
ReplyDeleteAmong those who filed a complaint regarding the issue with the long loading times of the assignment and the non-working search function, has anybody received any feedback so far? I haven't heared anything back after filing the complaint on Tuesday....
ReplyDeleteAny updates on the complaints...anyone?
ReplyDeleteOur D1 and D2 answers are on separate blogs:
ReplyDeletehttps://eqe-d.blogspot.com/2025/03/d1-2025-our-provisional-answers.html
and
https://eqe-d.blogspot.com/2025/03/d2-2025-our-provisional-answer.html