D2 2025 Our provisional answer
Our provisional answers to the D2 2025 are below (Note: D1 answers here, first impressions blog here)
Question 1(a)(i): What is the current
patent situation as regards the following subject-matter: a bicycle saddle
connector (BSC) with damping means (DM) in the form of spheres made from rubber
(O)
P-MY is earliest application for BSC + DM =
(O) - filed on 28 May 2021 by Sando Bike
Will have been published soon after 28 Nov.
2022
There are no earlier disclosures of BSC +
DM of any kind.
The search report from MyIPO found no
documents of relevance, so claim is novel.
The connector allows for a surprising
better riding experience while still suppressing hard shocks, which supports
inventive step. Valid patent protection has been obtained.
Status: granted in October 2023, so can be
used to stop manufacture and sales of BSC + DM= (O) in Malaysia.
PCT-MY filed on 26 May 2022, claims priority from P-MY
Filed by Bikey, but prior to filing, in Aug
2021, P-MY was transferred to Bikey, including the right to claim priority, so
was filed by successor in title
PCT-MY was filed within the 12m priority
period of P-My, and contains same description as P-MY.
Claim 2 is directed to BSC + DM= (O), the
same invention, and priority is validly claimed.
Claim 2 of PCT-MY has effective date:
28/05/2021
PCT-MY entered EP phase with claim to BSC +
DM= (O)
Status of EURO-PCT-MY is deemed withdrawn,
due to failure to file the search results for the priority application
The invitation was issued on 4/04/2024 and
would have given a 2m time limit to respond, by providing the requested search
results, which were available.
4/4/2024 + 2m --> 4/6/2024 (Tue)
The Loss of Rights was notified 6 months ago, well
outside of the allowed 2m period for requesting further processing. No remedy
is available.
Consequently, no protection can be obtained
for any subject-matter via Euro-PCT-My
EP-DIV filed on 30 April contains same
description as PCT-MY, so BSC + DM= (O) is disclosed.
EP-DIV was filed before 2m time limit to
file search results expired, so parent was pending.
EP-DIV does not include a claim to BSC +
DM= (O), equivalent to claim 2 of PCT-My, so at present there is no protection
in Europe for this subject-matter.
There is no information that PCT-MY entered
other national phases. The 30m period for entry in US expired in 28/11/2024 and
TW is not a PCT state.
So only protection for BSC + DM= (O) is in
Malaysia
Question 1(a)(ii): What is the current
patent situation as regards the following subject-matter pyramids made from
rubber (P),
P-MY is earliest application for BSC + DM=
(P) - filed on 28 May 2021 by SandBike
Will have been published soon after 28 Nov.
2022
Status: granted in October 2023, so can be
used to stop manufacture and sales of (P) in Malaysia
PCT-My
Claims priority from P-MY and includes
disclosure of P-My
As (P) disclosed in P-MY and PCT filed by
successor in title, within 12m, this subject-matter is entitled to priority and has
effective date 28/05/2021.
EP-DIV was filed before the Euro-PCT-My was
deemed withdrawn in June 2024, so was pending and validly filed.
The claim to inherits the effective date of
this subject-matter in the parent: 28/05/2021.
Prior art
EP-B and EPB will have been published in
Nov 2019, but are not relevant as they do not relate to damping
The Article published in March 2022 is too
late to be prior art.
There is no relevant prior art relating to
rubber damping and the claim to BSC + DM= (P) in Ep-DIV is novel. The connector
allows for a surprisingly better riding experience while still suppressing hard
shocks and so is inventive.
EP-DIV can therefore lead to granted patent
protection for BSC + DM= (P) in Europe
No protection elsewhere, in US or TW, for
same reasons as explained for (O).
Question 1(a)(iii): What is the current
patent situation as regards the following subject-matter: cubes made from
rubber (R)
There are no applications which disclose or
claim BSC + DM= (cube)
PCT-My claim 1 directed to a BSC with
rubber DM (of any kind) encompasses (cube)
But as only (O) and (P) were disclosed in
P-MY, claim 1 as a whole not entitled to priority. The claim has partial
priority to (O) and (P) but a remaining conceptual part of the claim directed
to other types of damper has effective date: PCT date: 26/05/2022
The brochure published in March 2022
disclosed DM= (cube) and is novelty destroying 54(2) prior art.
There is no patent protection for (cube).
Question 1(b)(i): What is the current
patent situation as regards the following subject-matter: a bicycle gear shift
system comprising an electric motor for shifting the gears and a switch to be
mounted on the handlebar of a bicycle for selecting the gears via an electrical
wire (A).
Status: withdrawn before publication so
cannot lead to protection in Italy. Can serve as a priority right for a
subsequent application filed until 6/6/2019
Priority is validly claimed and the
effective date of claim 2 is 06/06/2018.
Compared with traditional bicycle gear shift systems, which have no electric motor, system with (A) has advantage that the cyclist can always operate the switch with the same force, irrespective of the gear engaged. Consequently, claim 2 is also inventive.
EP-ABC has been granted. Claim 2 gives
valid patent protection
Question 1(b)(ii): What is the current
patent situation as regards the following subject-matter: a bicycle gear shift
system comprising an electric motor for shifting the gears and a switch to be
mounted on the handlebar of a bicycle for selecting the gears via a wireless
radio connection (B).
EP-B is the first application to disclose
and claim BGS + motor and wireless switch (B) Effective date of claim: EP-B
filing date: 20/09/2018
There are no earlier disclosures of such a
BGS system with motor and switch and the claim is novel.
Inventive step is supported by the fact
there is the advantage that the cyclist can always operate the switch with the
same force, irrespective of the gear engaged.
Consequently, EP-B can lead to granted
patent protection for (B).
EP-ABC was filed by Camp Spa on 14 May 2019 claiming priority from EP-B (and IT1). Claim 3 is directed to (B). Ownership including priority right of EP-B was transferred to inventor Allesio Allesi on 2 May 2019 , before EP-ABC was filed. As such priority is invalid (application not filed by successor in title).
However,
the applicant of EP-ABC is presumed to be entitled to claim the priority. Thus
as it stands, also EP-ABC can lead to patent protection for B. However, the
entitlement to claim priority can be rebutted.
If entitlement
is successfully rebutted, EP-ABC gets the filing date for (B). This makes EP-B
Art.54(3) prior art (filed before, published after) relevant for novelty only.
Since B is disclosed, claim 3 of EP-ABC would not be new (but EP-ABC is granted
at this moment).
When the priority entitlement gets successfully
rebutted, Claim 1 of EP-ABC would also not be new (species destroys genus). But
Camp can remedy that with a disclaimers (disclosed disclaimer G2/10 as it is
also described jn EP-ABC (as EP-B is Art.54(3), lack of inventive step cannot
be argued).
Prior art
EP-B was filed earlier and got published
later, so is Art 54(3) prior art relevant for novelty only. B is disclosed, so
claim 3 is not novel over EP-B.
Status: EP-ABC has been granted. But has not been validly granted: see Q3 for improvements.
Question 1(b)(iii): What is the current
patent situation as regards the following subject-matter: a bicycle gear shift
system comprising an electric motor for shifting the gears and a switch to be
mounted on the handlebar of a bicycle for selecting the gears as such (C).
IT-A filed by Camp Spa is the first and
earliest application to disclose BGS system + shift motor
+ switch for selecting gears on handlebar
(C), via a wire connection (A) Status: withdrawn before publication so cannot
lead to protection in Italy.
Can serve as a priority right for a
subsequent application filed until 6/6/2019
However, this claim is broader than the
disclosure in IT1, which only discloses a switch that is connected via a wire.
Claim 1 therefor encompasses sjm that is not unambiguously disclosed in IT-A
Consequently, the claim has a first
conceptual part entitled to priority (wire connection) and a remaining
conceptual part: switch is connected to motor by means other than a wire
connection, which is not entitled to priority:
This part has effective date: 14/05/2019
Ep-B has an earlier effective date:
20/09/2018 and got published later So is 54(3) prior art.
Ep-B discloses a means other than wire. so
is novelty destroying for that part of the claim.
EP-B is not prior art for the first
conceptual part or for claim 2.
Question 1(c): What is the current patent
situation as regards the following subject-matter: a bicycle gear shift system
comprising an electric motor for shifting the gears and means for selecting the
gears, the means including a GPS sensor (D).
DE-GPS is the earliest application and
Bikey’s 1st application for BGS + Motor for shifting and means for selecting =
D
Effective date of claims is therefore
18/12/2024 22-03-2024.
Prior art
EP-B and EP-ABC published earlier and are
Art 54(2) prior art
These documents do not disclose a means for
selecting gears including a GPS sensor, so claim 1 is novel.
The technical effect of the selecting means
is that the correct gear can be selected based on the slope of the road and the
speed of the bicycle. The overall effort by the cyclist is thereby reduced
enormously, as the cyclist always rides in the optimal gear.
Consequently claim 1 is inventive.
The dependent claims are also novel and
inventive.
DE-GPS can lead to granted patent
protection in Germany for (D).
Question 2(a). As the situation currently
stands: are we free to produce and sell bicycle gear shift systems according to
our two prototypes?
Prototype 1 : BGS system with motor for
shifting gears and means for selecting via GPS, without handlebar switch.
P2 infringes claim 1 of EP-ABC and claim 3.
P2 would also infringe the claim of EP-B,
after grant, so you are not free to manufacture in Germany, assuming EP-ABC has
been validated in Germany, or sell in any EP country where protection is in
force.
Question 2(b). As the situation currently stands:
is Selle S.A. free to produce and sell their existing and planned lines of
bicycle saddle connectors?
As explained in Q1, there is currently no protection for BSC + DM = (Cube) or (O) or BSC + DM = rubber in the territories of interest: Europe, US, TW.
So, yes: Selle is free to produce their saddle connectors with Cube and (O) damping in France and to sell these products in the markets of interest.
Question 3. What can we do to improve our
position?
Opposition: inform the EPO that EP-ABC
cannot validly claim priority from EP-B, since it had been transferred to the
inventor before EP-ABC was filed.
Provide evidence of the contract to
overcome the rebuttable presumption of entitlement to priority and submit EP-B
as novelty destroying prior art for claims 1 and 3.
This evidence is late-filed, but as it
prejudices the maintenance of the patent, the Opposition Division will admit it
into the proceedings.
The OD is also permitted to examine facts
and evidence of its own motion, including a fresh ground of opposition: lack of
novelty.
Increase territorial scope of protection.
To get protection in TW, file a TW application claiming priority from DE-GPS before priority period expires on 22/03/2024 + 12m --> 22/03/2025 (Sat) extended to 24/03/2025 (assuming TW law has similar closure extension rules and that the TW office is closed on Sat, is open on 24/03/2025).
Also possible to file US application and EP
application claiming priority, or a PCT application, which could be
nationalized in any regions of interest within 30/31m from priority to give
protection in the US and important sales markets in Europe.
After grant in EP, validate in Italy to
stop Camp Spa from manufacturing.
Protection of BSC + DM=(O)
Not possible to get protection for (O) from
PCT-My.
The divisional application EP-DIV contains
the description of P-My, which discloses (O). File a further divisional EP-DIV2
with a claim directed to (O).
The claim has effective date of P-MY, and
is novel and inventive (see analysis of P-MY)
Granted patent protection for (O) can be
obtained in EP.
After EP-DIV2 has been published, file
translation of claim in French with French Office to establish provisional
protection in France.
Pay all necessary fees for EP-Div2 and
request accelerated processing under PACE.
After grant, validate in France and other
EP countries of interest, or file a request for unitary effect within 1m from
grant, to stop Selle manufacturing and selling O.
Nothing can be done about cube.
EP-B: Buy or obtain a license to EP-B. As
Mr Alessio has been so helpful, it seems likely that this is possible
Question 4. After the improvements:
(a) will
we be free to produce and sell bicycle gear shift systems according to our two
prototypes?
Yes, claims 1 and 3 of EP-ABC will be stuck down.
After obtaining (a license to) EP-B, you
will be free to manufacture Prototype 2.
(b) will
Selle S.A. be free to produce and sell their existing and planned lines of
bicycle saddle connectors?
Selle will be free to produce and sell BSC
+ DM = (Cube), but not (O).
Diane Tweedlie (main editor), Jelle Hoekstra, Roel van Woudenberg
We welcome your comments!
Perhaps the exam secretariat could have benefitted from some technical tests so that they could be sure their technology wouldn't fail them on the big day ;)
ReplyDeleteAt what point can we even trust the next issued letter? It was reasonable to believe the first letter was correct, as well as the second. But now the third? Fourth? Exam committee who cried wolf...
ReplyDeleteGood point. I am hoping we get a series of letters and then I will show my boss the one with the ‘right’ result. Bingo!
DeleteIt is cruel of the secretariat to know that results given were wrong and yet not email every candidate to inform them. The only way of knowing that a result you received yesterday is wrong is to log back into the portal, or read these blogs, but many people will not do that.
ReplyDeleteThere are many people who are celebrating or who are devastated today who should not be. This is bitterly cruel.
That's life~
DeleteThat's not life, it's incompetence
DeleteThis profession looks more like a joke every day. Bring on the AI and let’s be done with it.
ReplyDeleteI was able to download the result letter two times after the first two corrections. In the first one I passed, in the second one I failed. And now the wait….Never have I experienced such a level of anxiety before, and I’ve been alive for more than 40 years.
ReplyDeleteSeriously? were the points totally different?
DeleteThe only thing that they corrected in my paper was the Examination Committee was corrected to Examination Board
DeleteYes, the grades are totally different. I don’t recognize any of the grades though. In D for instance I know did horribly bad in D1-2 but still got above average grades, while I did really good in D2 I got almost no points!
DeleteWhat about the other exams? Or did you only sit the D exam?
DeleteI only sat D this year.
DeleteIn both letters I did get 2 points extra for the 20 minutes delay in the exam. I had submitted a complaint about it.
Hi Anon@9:31. This is very helpful information for the rest of us, although extremely frustrating for you - my sympathies are with you. My letter gave me an utterly dismal fail (29) and the marks for individual questions were bizarre (I nearly passed last year and worked a lot harder this year). It is shattering to get this letter and it made me think of leaving the profession altogether. But now on re-checking my letter I note that the candidate number is wrong and the marker1 & 2 totals are interchanged, as well as the max possible marks totalling 200 instead of 100. It seems that if there was a mistake to be made then they did it.
DeleteAnd one of the key personal attributes for a patent attorney is 'attention to detail'. Somebody must be 'redeployed' for this debacle.
I wasn't able to download the result since yesterday. Not once. Couldn't sleep the whole night. Anxiety is through the roof. It is one thing to fail and deal with the facts and reality, it is entirely another thing to keep this unnecessary uncertainty alive. Apologizing would be the right thing to do, but I don't expect them to do it as they have consistently shown to be intransparent in their approach.
DeleteI also couldn’t sleep last night. The whole situation is really disappointing. If the EQE secretariet would be transparent with all candidates about any technical issues/shortcomings (then we could maybe all relax more).
DeleteI demand a refund of the exam fee.
ReplyDeleteBased on Secretariat practice to date, you will only receive it if you claim it. The actual value of the refund will be generated by a random number generator (the same one they used for results generation).
DeleteThe telephone lines of the Examination Secretariat open today at 2. If someone reaches a person in charge, pls report what the status quo is.
ReplyDeleteIf they're smart, they make sure all is clear for everyone by 2 PM. Otherwise they'll be flooded in desperate phone calls.
Deleteif they are smart, they will not pick up the phone after 2 PM
Deletesmart? that ship has sailed - and they were not on it.
DeleteHello, is anyone having problem to login to wiseflow? I cannot, it seems to be blocked for me
ReplyDeletesame.
DeleteI've not been able to access it for a couple of weeks now.
DeleteUse the link from here:
Deletehttps://www.epo.org/de/learning/eqe-epac/european-qualifying-examination-eqe
https://europe.wiseflow.net/login/license/751
They are working
Thanks! They do work through that link. I was hoping to see my candidate number on there to compare to results yesterday, but that was asking too much.
Deletebut this ID is nowhere mentioned on the results letter
ReplyDeleteDid anybody receive a reply to the Paper A complaint?
ReplyDeleteI seriously just want to cry.... I'm so anxious. I can't understand how they can treat us like this.
ReplyDeletesame.
DeleteWe should write to the epi, of which many candidates are also members, asking to take a strong stance on what is happening. While good relationships between the Office and the Institute are needed for proper functioning, these need be based on mutual respect. What is happening, and the way communication is being managed by the EPO is anything but respectful. Even if we are "only" a (sometimes) younger and weaker part of the community, we deserve better than this. And those of us who will pass also do not deserve to enter the ranks of the fully qualified members with the shadow of doubts that they may have benefit from other people's results - the story of the anonymous above receiving two letters with opposite results is chilling to the bones, for its potential implications on the whole grading process.
DeleteI've downloaded my answers from Wiseflow using the link in the thread above (Anon@10:35). The ID numbers in the answer pages are all different (D1-1, D1-2 and D2) and they don't match either of the numbers in the results letter (page 1 or page 2), and none of these numbers are the same as my Unique Identification Number (UNIN) in the portal. Hopefully somebody at the EQE headquarters has an uncorrupted spreadsheet that links all these numbers together. Is that wishful thinking?
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile they don't want us phoning them at 2pm today because...well...they're a bit busy.
I have done the same as you. None of them correspond to anything in my received result
Deleteletter and not my UNIN either. I think everyone should call at 14:00 so they have an idea of the scale of this problem.
My wiseflow does not include any results.
DeleteHi Anon@12:25. Use this link and (surprisingly) you can download your scripts whereas on the normal link it doesn't work. Probably wise to do this with the current level of disarray because we all might need them as proof one day... https://europe.wiseflow.net/login/license/751
DeleteUnbelieveable that the epo acts as if nothing has happend now. Not even an e-mail. A colleague of mine got aware only this morning and was celebrating all evening...
ReplyDeleteand all of this of the entity which demands us to be fit for practice. maybe we should turn the table and let the epo sit in a paper to proof them being fit for practice...
Unfortunately, we all know the kind of arrogance and lack of empathy big organisations like the EPO tend to show. But this complete disregard for the candidates really goes beyond what’s acceptable.
DeleteHere is what appears to be a reasonable course of action for the candidates. Prepare yourself for an appeal. There is no certainty that the marks you have obtained are correct. Not after the change of marks and result altogether from pass to fail, as reported above. Since the process for uploading the examiner's report is different, I don't see a reason why it should not have been uploaded even at this moment. This means they want to give less time to prepare for appeals i.e,. less than one month. I would say don't take the marks in the letter provided as the final. Go through the examianer's report from all angles and prepare and file an appeal. There is no way of knowing that the marks were correctly given after this, but to ensure the exmaining committee looks at the answer again and marks it. Granted it takes time and money, but do it anyways.
ReplyDeleteTechnically, the red banner uploaded yesterday evening wrote that the *result letters* should be disregarded, but not the *results* themselves.
ReplyDeleteI would pray what you mention is correct, but I guess that "result letter" comprises "result". And I insist that I'd like that you are right.
DeleteThe results do not exist anywhere in isolation of the result letters though, and so are included in disregarding the letters
Deleteand on top of that, the results are numbers (0-100) and not letters (A-F)!!!!!!
DeleteLOL!!
Delete
DeleteTo Anonymous 8 July 2025 at 12:21: The results do exist in isolation from the letters. The letters are generated using input from a "result source". I have seen on LinkedIn some shabby results letters having and other coding fails (in addition to the 200 and marker 1 and 2 issues indicated above), so I am expecting that the re-generation relates to this kind of issues, and not the actual input. This comes from a person who would like the results to be different (I failed in some papers), but I don't think any substantive changes on the marks should be expected - unless of course you have gotten as a grade letters instead of numbers.
In any case, we will see...
Exactly
ReplyDeleteYou’re right, but as you can imagine, with all the mess we’re dealing with, we really can’t take anything for granted.
DeleteHas anyone had enough bravery to be in contact with the examination secretariat today?
ReplyDeleteI actually got 0 on the question I did not answer at all so I don't think we got someone else's result. I think there are two (relatively minor) mistakes: the 'Max possible' should be divided by 2 (then you get 45 and 55 for parts 1 and 2) and the sums of markers 1 and 2 should be swapped. I think the final mark is correct. I agree on the lack of communication though.
ReplyDeleteI also have a 0 for a question I kind of skipped (unity arguments in paper B 😉 ). However, I would've thought my D2 was better than the 32.5/55 i got, so my confusion is true the roof.
DeleteThanks for sharing. Mostly, the points on my results also match my expections and/or the amount I wrote.
DeleteUnfortunately this comment has no evidence. It is only speculation. I doubt that the candidate reference number on your 'result letter' bears any resemblance to your actual candidate reference number.
DeleteI agree that it is only speculative but might be an (empiric) hint. The numbers on the following pages might be the internal numbers given to the candidates for anonymous transmission to the markers (also mere speculation).
DeleteHowever, all of this is only the result of overthinking the whole situation caused by the silence of the EPO.
I have the dubious privilege of having a letter from 2024 and the ref numbers on both sides of the results letter were the same as each other, and were the same as my candidate number at the time. This year there is zero correlation. Furthermore, last year I nearly passed having not done enough work, but this year I worked extremely hard for several months and got an embarrassingly low result! Still furthermore, on several questions I got zero or 1 mark even though I know I made a reasonable attempt. To me the results they sent me yesterday are just not credible (though of course I may be wrong).
DeleteI agree with you, as I too am overthinking in the absence of any consideration or care from the EPO.
(meanwhile I have an office action I must do, but it is hard to concentrate!)
I also noted that the numbers last year were the same. However, the first page and the second page numbers also have a different amount of digits (7 on first page, 8 on second). So my grasp would be, they simply have nothing in common, i.e. are not both the simple "offical" candidates number. But again: overthinking and speculation.
DeleteWe again can agree that we can't focus on work. I wish we could sue the EPO for compensation in exchange for the uncertainty...
Lucky for all of you who got an email indicating that the results were available. I never got one at all!
ReplyDeleteActually, I think it's better than the situation we are in now. I passed and told everyone, now I might have to go back telling everyone I didn't.
DeleteI cannot believe this! So the letters from yesterday are void? are the results correct? Why would the EPO not send us an email explaining the situation? :(
ReplyDeleteAre we getting the results today???
ReplyDeleteThe right question is 'Are we getting the correct results today?' From now on we will always get results, but we will never know if they are right.
DeleteIs enrolment for EQE 2026 available to anyone? It is supposed to be possible from today I think but not open on my EQC portal.
ReplyDeleteI checked the score in time and it met my expectations. Even though I didn't pass all the exams, I was relieved.
ReplyDeleteBut were they YOUR results..? :-)
DeleteName and address are correct, so I think they are my results, this explanation is more probable than others...anyway, it should be disregarded.
DeleteWhen are the true results out? Can someone call the secretariat
ReplyDeletePeople may remember that Pre-Exam 2023 results were published the 10th of May and then re-published the 24th of May. Well, let's hope the delay is not the same this time...
ReplyDeletehttps://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2023/05/pre-exam-2023-results-and-examiners.html
Rule 27(e) IPREE: "Examination Committee V shall be entrusted with the quality management of the papers. It shall advise the other Examination Committees in this respect."
DeleteQuality management....
Were anyone's results yesterday unquestionably wrong (i.e., results for exams you didn't even sit)?
ReplyDeleteWas it for you? I sat all 4, so cannot provide any info in regards to that.
DeletePersonally I could see how some of the exams that I failed could go wrong, but never expected to go THAT wrong.
I wanted to ask this too. So far, no-one has had results which 100% are not true, and me and others have had mark breakdowns that roughly align with our answers, so I think everything indicates that the actual marks are right...
DeleteNo, but I did get 21/55 points on D2 while my answers were almost identical to the solution proposed by DeltaPatents
DeleteDeltaPatents can be wrong and has been in the past
Deleteonly sat one exam, B, and my feeling was that it would be a close call. I got 50 and the breakdown of the marks corresponded largely with my expectations (due to time restraints, I only did half of the i.s. arguments so there I lost a lot of marks). Could of course be coincidence, but I received the letter twice, two times the same result. And also my marks of last year were published on the letter correctly.
DeleteOf all I'm hearing, the problems seem to be situated around paper D mainly?
I thought my A part was very good.... got 63, can live with that, B felt grinding and wrong... got 47, C felt kinda ok with enough material, got 53, D1 was a trainwreck, got 15, D2 felt ok with no major mistake, got 30 (and 2 extra points). So they chose a candidate matching my performence.
DeleteI phoned the secreteriat. I asked if the error was in the numbers or admin details in the letter. The guy I spoke to said that it was likely that the numbers are correct. I asked how long it could be and they said hopefully this week so it could be a couple of days yet.
ReplyDeleteI should add - they said it was likely the numbers are correct but they can't guarantee and to rely on the actual letter
DeleteNumbers = score or the identification numbers?
DeleteSo we just have to wait in agony for who knows how many days... great
DeleteNumbers = score
DeleteSo..they are NOT my scores! Yay.
DeleteScore or ID???
ReplyDeleteI called and the woman told me that a pass given on 7th July does not necessarily mean a pass today and that all results published on 7th July are to be disregarded.
ReplyDeleteHow about a fail?
Deletedid you ask when the final results are coming
DeleteThe same situation. Every single results letter published 7th July is to be disregarded. They are not valid.
DeleteThe final results clearly won’t/should not be published today. I think they should take their time and ensure everything is correct before causing anyone else undue stress/anxiety.
DeleteTo Anonymous 8 July 2025 at 14:26:
DeleteI disagree. Since they messed up so much, they need to publish NOW the results in a different (less fancy) format. They can post a list with the UNIN of each candidate and the respective mark for each of the A,B,C,D papers. Each candidate can then cross check their results. They can try the auto-generation of results in their free time, and NOT with our results...
I agree - they used to just publish them in a list, much less room for error.
DeleteImpressive how they have mastered this kind of ambiguous communication.
ReplyDeleteCan you imagine how the EPO would act if any one of us 'professional representatives' made such a mistake and did not correct it right away?
ReplyDeleteSeriously what is going on?? no actual information from the EPO, just rumors..
ReplyDeleteI just cannot believe that we have not gotten any official notification about this mess..
ReplyDeleteNo idea where the candidate number comes from. It doesn't match my UNIN or my EQEReg number or any other I've managed to find. But it is so far away from any of them that I can't believe it's another candidate's version of one of those (talking 300k away from my value) unless they're completely random. I wouldn't read too much into the number right now.
ReplyDeleteMy marks, while lower than I'd expected, match broadly with how I figured I'd do when comparing my answers to the Delta Patents ones. E.g. losing marks in C claim 1 for different closest prior art in inventive step attack, or having low marks for B inventive step because I rushed it at the end. If these are another candidate's results then we're shockingly similar.
Same, mine seem consistent. Lots of little things like I did badly in D2 as expected and got 0 for the method claim for A (as I completely overlooked this). Individually not convincing but all together it would be quite a coincidence if these were someone else's marks.
DeleteHi Anonymous from 8 July 2025 at 15:24: Can you please elaborate on the marking strucutre for paper A which you saw in your results letter? Pretty please. Method claim is surprising.
DeleteI just talked to a very friendly person of the EPO secretariat, who apologized for the confusion and let me know the following: the technicians and the whole board are working very hard to get the results out hopefully by tomorrow. They do not expect that previously published results (especially porisitve ones) will change, however, they cannot guarantee that. The issue was not related to the points/marks but rather to something else in the letters.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the info! I feel a bit better reading this
DeleteAnd the negative ones?
DeleteI think you are my new favorite person <3
DeleteThis correlates with the red banner published yesterday, that the result letters need to be regenerated, and not the results themselves...
DeleteSo they are not my scores?
DeleteTo Anonymous 8 July 2025 at 15:40:
DeleteIs this what you understand after reading the above?
another candidate's scores. not mine?
DeleteThey are saying that the scores are more likely correct
Delete@Anonymous 8 July 2025 at 15:40;
DeleteWhat you mean, these comments clearly point to the fact that the scores will probably not change? So they are most likely your scores..
yes but whose scores are they? mind or another candidate's? how do u explain the differing candidate number ;)
DeleteMy guess is that these numbers were somehow "internal" and should not have been published. I personally do not care what number is on there, as long as the results are mine.
DeleteThen why were the candidate numbers shown in 2024? ;)
Deletehow can they be YOUR results when the assigned candidate number does not assign with YOUR candidate number? ;)
Delete@anonymous 15:52
DeleteUnfortunately, I also dont have the answer. We will see sooner or later what was going on.
Lots of us seem to have got 0 for method claim in A (including me, if those results happen to be correct). Any ideas why?
ReplyDeleteMaybe due to the exceptions of art 53(c) - diagnostic method practiced on the human body?
DeleteRelying on the results i got, I had a 2 out of 10; and I had 4 method claims, of which three were independent (one directed at Method for testing a liquid sample for the presence of a target molecule, one Method for testing a urine sample for pregnancy and one Method for testing a nose or throat swab sample for an infection caused by bacteria or viruses) all using the lateral flow test as claimed in previous cliams.
Deletethis was obviously not the way to go :p
Anon 15:51 again, I had a 31/40 for claim 1 and had roughly the deltapatents claim, but with 'in a dried form', so that would also align
DeleteAnonymous from
Delete8 July 2025 at 15:57: now that you have gotten 31/40 for claim 1 and assumingly passed the exam, can you post your claim 1 for our reference?
got a new email. clicking and ending up on a blank page.
ReplyDeleteWhen you thought third time's a charm, ... nope.
email about what?
DeleteEDIT: opened. Same result, candidate numbers have been corrected it seems.
DeleteRESULTS ARE OUT
ReplyDeleteAre your results the same as previously published???
DeleteI just got my third results, and they are the same as the previous results.
ReplyDeleteJust received the email from EQC portal stating that results are out. The only difference is the candidate number on the second page. The marks are identical.
ReplyDeleteStill nothing in sight for me..
ReplyDeleteDid anyone get a good score in D2? I also got a way lower mark than expected (like twice lower). It's strange because the feeling after the exam was that D2 was relatively easy. But either the DP answer is totally wrong or they were extremely strict with all small details. Just curious if someone got 30+ and whether he/she did something different from the DP solution.
ReplyDeleteSame, had a 32,5/55 and thought I answered almost perfectly ;p ;p
DeleteI got 46 out of 55 (very proud tbh!). The only difference to the Deltapatents solution is that I stated EVERY detail that I could come up with, regardless of how "obvious" it is. My solution has over 11 pages. I did not focus on any results but on the path towards them and stated every (!) step along the way.
DeleteMaybe the results are skewed lower by faulty averaging process!?
ReplyDeleteI mean the results correlate with the questions I did well/not well, but the overall marks are suuuuuper low!
For instance, I am sure I wrote a lot more than 0.5 points worth of statements in question 1 of D1-2.
Same for me.
DeleteAny FAIL to PASS? No email yet for me
ReplyDeleteNo E-mail and no result for me yet.
ReplyDeleteNo results for me yet
DeleteJust got my letter (again) and apart from the reference numbers and the max possible marks total everything else is the same as the previous letter, with the same result (fail).
ReplyDeleteJust got my email - same results but different candidate numbers and paper D added up to 100
ReplyDeleteand still mixed up sums for B in my case. Marker 1 adds to a number which matches the sum of marker 2 and vice versa
Deletedid someone receive a third email and still have no result available on the webpage ??
ReplyDeleteGot my email and my new results letter. Candidate number matches from page 1 and the rest of the letter now (but is still a number I've never seen before, which I don't think is an issue). Paper D total marks and examiner summations have been fixed. Although I still received a higher overall Paper D mark than either Examiner total equals to, but it didn't affect my outcome.
ReplyDeleteOverall, marks and outcome for all four exams are identical.
Oh actually, the Examiner totals for Paper D are still incorrect, in that the total for Examiner 1 is the actual total for Examiner 2 and vice versa. Plus my overal Paper D mark awarded by the examination committee is 2.5 marks higher than either of the Examiners. Doesn't change the outcome but it's weird.
DeleteEveryone got like 2-3 points of compensation because the assignment did not open for 20 min
DeleteThe extra marks in paper D are the 5% compensation for the Wiseflow issues apparently, it was added to the total that was agreed between the two markers, so 2.5 will be 5% of your mark without the compensation
DeleteAhhh good to know, thank you Anonymouses. Odd that it's not mentioned in the letter in my opinion. I didn't have any issues in the exam because I open the paper in the pop-up form not the new tab form, I assumed any compensation would be the result of a complaint rather than blanket. Not complaining though!
Deletenew letter, same score but the marks of the examiners are still swapped, i expect a third withdrawal...
ReplyDeleteanyone received a third email indicating that results are available , but no results can be found (again) on the portal??
ReplyDeleteThought it might be useful to mention that the results are in a slightly weird place on the portal. My Requests>EQE enrolment main exam>Activity.
ReplyDeleteThat's helpful - thank you. I can't see the results under that but I also haven't had an email to say results available. Does it also show under your 'my documents' tab?
DeleteNo it is only showing in the weird my request location not my documents
DeleteGot email again, same results, numbers on results match the front page, D is correctly 100 points and not 200, but paper C still has swapped scores for marker 1 and 2. Really hope we can trust the result now, would be completely insane to do withdraw them twice...
ReplyDeleteI am not able to login into the EQC-Portal beacause I'm not receiving a verification code via Mail- anybody same problem? I did not receive any further E-Mail today that results are out, yesterday I received such an E Mail
ReplyDeleteanyone want to call up and see if these results are correct
ReplyDeleteMy results in today's letter are exactly the same as yesterday's letter (I got two emails yesterday, but only managed to see the second letter. I believe the first letter from yesterday was already taken away before I could see it). The candidate number is now consistent on all pages, but it is a number I have never seen before (doesn't match my EQE Reg Number). The D total is now 100 (yesterday was 200). My Marker 1 and Marker 2 B results are still switched, but the average result should be correct regardless of that switch. A, C, and D Marker's all add up correctly. The marks appear as roughly what I expected. C was my worst overall. I knew I missed claim 5 of C2, and the low marks for that claim reflect it accurately. I want to believe these results, since I've gotten the same twice now, but hard to know if this is really the official result now or not.
ReplyDeleteAny different results?
ReplyDeleteNo email, no results, but happy for those you have them and passed. gd luck all
ReplyDeletelet's see how long before they will remove them again
ReplyDeleteI passed my last exam but I‘m not able to be happy currently. Is it legit or again not the real result? :(
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean? Is it different
DeleteI didn’t receive a result yesterday at all. But after all these discussions here I don’t trust my result yet. Hopefully it is correct and I finally passed the Horror called EQE.
DeleteTo everyone discussing the candidate numbers. I think it may be a wiseflow ID or something. On the new result letter, the number is now consistent and that number matches the number on the pdf download from when I did the technical wiseflow test in January.
ReplyDeleteWow, great find. You are right. That number does match the number on my pdf download from my technical tests in both January and February. Okay, that was one of the only remaining mysteries for me. I feel better now, thank you!
DeleteMy marks are different, but passed anyway. Happy days!
ReplyDeleteYea are results are also different from the previous ones...
DeleteTell us how different?
DeleteIn my case, the marks are exactly the same as the ones I saw yesterday. Anyway, I passed Paper D, so now it’s just Paper C left for next year. Congrats to everyone who passed, and hang in there if you’ve still got a part or two to go!
ReplyDeleteCongrats. I passed part C on the first try and really close, because they gave me a lot of points for my inventive step arguments. Is practiced that a lot. Good luck!
DeleteThe sum of my grades is higher than the sum mentioned in the letter.
ReplyDeleteHow to proceed???
appeal!
DeleteAnyone know when the Examiner's Reports are usually published?
ReplyDeleteusually same day or day after (but who knows under the circumstances)
DeleteFinally the results are out!
ReplyDeleteStill wrong UNIN. I have received two different results with different UNIN, one yesterday and one now some few minutes ago after the new e-mail. None of them match my UNIN!!!???
ReplyDeleteThe UNIN is different to the candidate number on the results letters. If you did the technical tests you can check what your candidate number is on wiseflow from the answer submitted in the technical test.
DeleteI cannot even log in to my EPC account: wrong user name or invalid password, but everything is correct…
ReplyDeleteNotwithstanding the fact that I failed paper D in a miserable manner (which I think I deserve), it would have been nice to see markers who agreed (my markers had a 10 point difference between them) and to have the proper sum in the proper column. I mean, all this wait just to get a letter which is, in essence, still wrong...
ReplyDeleteIf it can be of comfort, I also failed D miserably and I also deserved it
DeleteExaminer's report for Paper A is out
ReplyDeletePaper A examiner's report out and as I suspected, I failed because I didn't include the single word "gold" when claiming the spherical colour particles 20-100 nm. Damn... Tried to go too broad instead of just copy pasting from the paper like I know I should. Had gold in claim 3.
Delete