D 2026: first impressions?
To all who sat the D-paper today:
What are your first impressions with respect to the very final D-paper? Any
general or specific comments?
For example, was there a good
balance between EPC-related questions and PCT-related questions? Did any
unexpected topics come up? Was the paper easier than in recent years, or
harder, or at a comparable level?
Please be reminded that, if you wish
to lodge a complaint pursuant to point I.9. of Instructions to Candidates EQE2026 concerning the conduct of
the examination, you must do so at the latest by the end of the day on
which the paper to which your complaint pertains takes place, by filling in the
dedicated form on the EQE website. The Form for paper D is only
available on 03.03.2026, 16:45 - 23:59, CET.
The paper and our answers
We aim to post our provisional answer shortly after the exam in a separate
blog post as soon as possible after we have a copy of the paper, preferably in
all three languages. Should you have a copy of at least a part of the paper, 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 view/download
button below the "1. Paper"-icon in the bottom left part of the outer
shell of the respective flow. It may not be available immediately after the
official end of the (part of the) paper, it can take 30-60 minutes to appear.
Apart from any pre-printable parts, the paper itself cannot be downloaded.
Comments are welcome in any official
EPO language, not just English.
In order to make responding to your
comments easier, please do not post your comments anonymously. You can use
either your real name or a nickname. 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.
Please post your comments as to
first impressions and general remarks to this blog, and post responses to our
answer (as soon as available) to the separate blog post with our answer. You
may also want to take a look at the blog posts about paper M2!
We look forward to hearing from you!
Seemed okay - D2 felt nicer than D1 imho.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 6 felt like a lot of marks for what I thought was a reformatio in peius question (G1/99), so I am not convinced I have approached that question correctly.
The question about limitation of a unitary patent threw me off as I hadn't seen that in my Hoekstra (although i'm sure its in there somewhere).
Found myself not writing as many deadlines (R131(2)(4), etc.) as I had done in the previous past papers I have attempted.
The sufficiency aspect in D2 felt complicated (with respect to priority claiming) until I found that one section in Hoekstra.
sufficiency of disclosure?
DeleteThe non-enabling disclosure in the priority application
Deleteon which basis you can say that was non-enabling?
Deletehttps://www.epo.org/en/legal/case-law/2025/clr_ii_d_4_6.html
DeleteThe fact the method of obtaining compound A was not disclosed and the face its not common general knowledge. The skilled person picking up the priority application cannot put the invention as claimed into use.
Delete
ReplyDeleteA race against time. I wonder what use this has for asessing skills of a European patent attorney.
Completely agree.
DeleteI found the load of work unbalanced between D1-I and D1-II. First was too much for 1,5 hour the second ok.
DeleteSigh, same here. I am coming to a point where I think I am just too slow for this exam. But also, I don't want to risk missing important aspects by rushing through the questions and info given. Content of questions was okay overall.
DeleteIt’s frustrating to feel like you can correctly answer 80% of what you tackle but never access more than 70% of the marks due to insufficient time… in many ways, closed book exams seem easier in this regard.
DeleteD2 was a race against time as per usual, but doable i.e. enough marks can be collected withitn 2.5hrs for an above average pass.
ReplyDeleteD1-1 was a sneaky move by the exam board to put the most difficult question as Q1. It threw me off and stressed me so much that I wasted a lot of time doing the much easier questions Q2 and Q3.
D1-2 was really nice! I enjoyed the UP question and could answer it perfectly with all the legal basis. I wonder why Q6 was awarded so many points when the solution is basically G1/99. My whole answer was less that half a page. Maybe I missed something.
CRTL+F did not work for D2 which caused a significant loss of time.
DeleteIt is good to hear you used G1/99 for Q6 - I was confused as to the marks as well as it was just a recital of the case law.
DeleteThe only UP part I didn't enjoy was the limitation of the patent, so I quickly noted down the general post-grant limitation procedure of EP patents. No idea if its correct or not as I couldn't find anything UP specific.
Not sure if I went down the wrong path, but Q6 must be more than G1/99
DeleteThe BoA can (when the proprietor agrees) raise new grounds of appeal (like in this case) and I wondered if they wanted us to accept the new ground to get a valid patent.
And when accepting the new ground you can elaborate on the inadmissible extension.
I wrote a lot, but found it necessary
The board raised grounds in second instance. Proprietor does not need to give consent to their admission, but if they don’t, the appeal would be rejected as novelty ground will not succeed. The OD’s decision will become final and patent will be in inescapable trap under Art 123(3) EPC. Therefore give consent for admission of new ground in appeal proceedings and resolve added SM, such request being justified and admissible because the ground was first raised in Art 15(1) RPBA comm. In scenario b), I said do not give consent to admission of new ground. Added SM in scenario B fixable in limitation.
Delete@Stefan - if you wish to file a complaint about the conduct of the exam re. not being able to use CTRL+F, you must do so before the end of today.
DeleteYour response to Q6 has upset me as I have not mentioned any of that
DeleteNone of the usual CTRL commands (copy, paste, find) worked for me. Cost significant time and certainly contributed to not having time for a good crack at Q3 and Q6 in Part 1. Also made Part 2 more arduous...
DeleteCtrl - F is not working in Wiseflow, you need to use a spectacle icon in the right upper corner. Very important for C.
DeleteSo it was granted for D and amended to D+F in opposition. This extends beyond the application as filed. I thought under T23/04 reformation doesn't apply as amendment to D+E is justified otherwise the patent will be revoked. Or am I way off? Now idea about D+E+F though
DeleteIf you have the question paper open in a new tab, ctrl + f never works in wiseflow. You need to use the search icon in the top right. Ctrl +f works only in the legal text tabs as far as I’m aware.
DeleteI found Q6 very hard. I also thought about G1/99, but isn't it about the opponent being put in a worse situation? Not the applicant. I then found G10/91 and went along the lines of being able to decide whether to allow the new grounds or not. But then was out of time.
DeleteI don't think D+E is justified under 123(3). There's a possibility that the opponent ends up in a worse situation. I suggested D+E+F based on G1/99, because G1/99 seems to imply that a claim might be allowed even if 123(2) is contravened, because D+E+F is narrower than D+F or D+E, and the applicant does not end up in a worse situation, because the patent would have been revoked anyway. But I did not suggest D+E+F for the case where D+E+F was disclosed.
DeleteHave I overlooked any indication that the appellant is the patentee? Is there a clear statement or even an implicit suggestion in the question that the patentee is the appealing party? If not, G 1/99 would not be applicable.
DeleteAlthough I identified G 1/99 as potentially relevant, my understanding is that the appellant in the opposition proceedings is the opponent, and that the proposed amendment does not place the opponent in a worse position. On that basis, the principles of G 1/99 would not apply.
I also considered the newly raised objection to constitute a new ground of opposition, which in principle would require the patentee’s consent (G10/91). While we would be entitled to withhold our approval, I believe it would be strategically advisable to accept the introduction of the new ground in order to avoid the risk of subsequent national revocation actions.
Accordingly, I would suggest pursuing the D+E amendment, as it does not extend beyond the content of the application as originally filed and overcomes the original ground of appeal.
Why would the opponent appeal the decision when the patent is revoked anyway? Makes no sense.
DeletePatent is not revoked. It is maintained in amended form. Opponent may appeal for full revocation. This make sense?
DeletePaper D2 was much friendlier than D1. Many familiar favourites: invalid priority claim due to non-enabling disclosure; late entry to EP phase, Filing an opposition, adding a priority claim to a PCT application
ReplyDeleteinvalid priority claim due to non-enabling disclosure; late entry to EP phase, Filing an opposition, adding a priority claim to a PCT application. Seems i have all this in improvement.
DeleteD1-2 was tough for me.
Sony Joseph
Invalid priority claim about which application?
DeleteD2 generally all the same but didn't add anything about the adding of a priority claim to a PCT application (presumably this was for PCT-CC-A?) I was under the impression priority to EP-CC for compound A could not be added as DE-CC was the first application for compound A and it had already served as a priority application so EP-CC can not be considered as a first application.
DeleteI also added to file a Div from Ep-cc claiming a method to produce A
DeleteThat's what I did too - divisional as subject matter A was not searched so the EP app could not be amended to that subject matter so a divisional needed to be filed. Compound A in the EP app has an earlier effective date than the brochure so is novel and inventive.
DeleteDid any one else add the priority of EP-CC in PCT-CC ? Considering the german application was not valid for priority due to lack of sufficiency, I considered that EP-CC was in fact the first application for A. But not sure whether there is case law on this
DeleteInteresting for someone taking the M2 to hear that Q6 might have been quite easy, while we were given 45 less to answer the second part (but without Q6), and the ones taking M2 have to pass both M1-1 and M1-2 individually. Even more interesting to hear that the D-2 part was friendlier than D-1 - and the ones passing D will be exempted from 4 out of the 5 exams. I sincerely regret taking the new route...
ReplyDeleteDon't worry. For M2 the Exam Committee has far more options to tweak the pass rate than for D. They will make sure the pass rate is acceptable
DeleteI found Q6 quite hard (if Q6 was the one about the appeal proceedings). I spent 50 minutes on it as it took me a while to suss out the legal basis and work out the twist.
DeleteAnyone else who can't seem to download their responses? For me, it just says "Submissions are not accessible on the flow after being made" in wiseflow.
ReplyDeleteSame for me.
DeleteIt will be soon
DeleteFor me the same, cannot see my answers yet
DeleteThis was the case with F and M2 as well. From what I heard they will make the answers available for download only after the candidates that got extra time for medical reasons have also finished the paper.
DeleteM2 is now downloadable.
DeleteWas anyone else also wondering in what language DIV2 in Q1 of D1-1 had been filed?
ReplyDeleteyuppppppp
DeleteI also lost quite a bit time in Q2 of D1-1 as the German version referenced D as disclosing the Special Rubber Type, when it should have referenced EP1...
ReplyDeleteYes same here. Meant I had almost no time at the end to do Q3.
DeletePlease ensure to complain by the deadline.
DeleteDefinitely complain to the EQE in writing to ensure they do something about this and don't try to brush it under the carpet.
DeleteDone
Deletemay you share the link where I can complain, please? thanks!
Deletehttps://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=PW17qF7Ym02HBGrtdqSURJh0j9RoJJRKirf_rjC7sZFUQ0lJUzJBRVI4TFVKR0RVWkUxNFZBRUNXNC4u
DeleteAny neutralizations?
ReplyDeleteI've found D1-part 2 specially hard. Q4 part b regarding which steps to follow in "each" case confused me. I was unable to found a real reply to Q5 second part regarding limitation of a UP in my notes and Q6...while I have also mentioned G1/99 for the first part, I was not sure on how to reply to the second part. I have missed in D1 the use of R131(4), questions relating to fee reductions and the ADA this year. D2 was more enjoyable but considering the difficulty for obtaining a reasonable amount of marks in paper D, I think the whole exam was more complicated to pass than last year.
ReplyDeleteLooks like nobody is using the dedicated M2 comments so I will repost here: There was a strange statement on the front page of the German M2 paper, asking candidates to specify which version of the guidelines they were referring to in their answer. This seems to to be a clear breach of IPREE 2(1) which specifies the cutoff for legal texts for this exam as 31st October 2025. Candidates should not be expected to specify which version of the guidelines they are using - the onus should be on the secretariat to give candidates access to the correct version of the guidelines during the exam, or IPREE should be amended to make provision for this and we should be provided to both versions of the guidelines (the most up to date and the version as it was at the IPREE cut off and we may make a selection. A similar discrepancy happened in the official Mock M2 with a reference to [R.64.1(a) PCT] - depending on the legal cutoff you take the answer is completely different. The whole purpose of IPREE 2(1) in the first place is to provide legal certainty to candidates and markers.
ReplyDeleteAgreed
DeleteWierd… I missed that statement (maybe it wasn’t in the English version?).
DeleteObviously the version one use is the one relevant according to the IPREE…? I didn’t specify anything in that regard.
It was in English version too.
Delete, but I only spotted it on D1-II. I said I was using current version of guidelines at the beginning (but I meant April 2025 Guidelines). I hope I’m not penalised with the examiner thinking I’m referring to the April 2026 GL which are not yet in force, when I was referring to the current GL in force.
This was in the English paper too. I specified "day of exam" for each reference as I was using the online guidelines in the lockdown browser, but I agree it was suspect!
DeleteThank you for confirming this was in the English paper also. Yes this is the problem, April 2026 GL are out and there are some pretty substantial changes... somebody please correct me if I am wrong but I don't think there were analogous statements expected regarding which guideline version you were using in the old paper D exams. I think this is a major issue and warrants a complaint. IPREE 2(1) is there for a reason and should be adhered to.
DeleteAlso some one please correct me if I have misunderstood but I only notice this on D-II as well. As far as I recall the statement wasn't present in D-I. Which is doubly confusing and doubly worrying. It means there was inconsistency across the papers and by implication the guideline version you used for D-II must have some impact on your answer, otherwise why would they do this!?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAt least in the English version, the statement asking the candidate to specify which version of the Guidelines they were using was in both parts 1 and 2
DeleteYep, can confirm the French version of the paper had the same mention. I did wonder for a second whether this was the case in previous years. I did find it quite strange that the EPO asks us to choose which legal basis we are using...
DeleteCould someone help me understand this statement. The version available online, and via WiseFlow, is the April 2025 version, right? And this is also the version that was "active" at the cut-off date, right? What GL version could one else be using, did they mean if you used an older one? I thought the 2026 version wasn't even available yet... What am I missing?
Delete@Anonymous I am on the same page as you. I don't understand what other version of the Guidelines one would use. The 2026 Guidelines are described as "preview" versions only to enter into force on 1 April 2026!
DeleteThank you AF, that's reassuring. I was thinking I had gone completely mad and missed something major!
DeleteSorry but to confirm, this statement was on the English version of Paper D? Not just M2? I honestly didn't even notice it, nor did my colleagues so I'm a bit worried about being penalised.
DeleteI can only speak for M2, in which it was on the front page of both parts of the English version, at least.
DeleteWhat did you write about claims 3 and 4 in D2 question 1 (those directed to the glass pane obtained by claim 1 or 2)? I was somehow confused by the way the claims were written and was not sure, whether those were product-by-process claims or not...
ReplyDeleteI could be wrong on any of the below but I think my main thoughts about the panel claims were:
Delete- they aren’t product-by-process claims but rather can be interpreted effectively as a glass pane consisting of a specific glass (e.g. consisting of glass comprising compound A)
- claims with a later effective date to either corresponding glass or relevant compound are anticipated by panel disclosures. For instance, the brochure disclosure of a panel of glass comprising A (May 2025) would anticipate PCT-CC-A claims to the compound A itself and and to the glass comprising A (but I think this could be fixed by correcting the priority claim)
-EP-CC claims 3 and 4 to panels of glass comprising B or B+A in were novel and inventive because of the effects imparted the compounds.
Anyone know the answer for DIV2?
ReplyDeleteDIV2 cannot be saved because if correct parts are introduced based on R56a it will be redacted to a date that it after the grant of its parent application. No priority claim for DIV2 so filing date cannot be maintained.
DeleteWasn’t DIV2 filed in English, so that’s the language of proceedings and the authentic text is the English version, not the original Japanese text of the parent, and so you can’t bring it into conformity with the original Japanese text.
DeleteSince it was filed with the wrong description and claims, it extends beyond the content of the parent. And I don’t think you can replace an entire spec under R139…
So I think it’s screwed.
No, Japanese cannot be the language of proceedings of a EP app! And divisional can only be filed based on EP app.
Delete@Stefan why can't Rule 56a(4) be used to retain the filing date?
DeleteDIV2 didn’t claim any priority on filing
DeleteDIV2 inherits the filing and priority dates of the parent, no?
DeleteDid the parent application not have a priority claim though? I thought it did, but don’t have access to the Qs. If the parent application had priority claim then this is shared with the DIV2. Then R56a(4) EPC should in principle be invokable, then delete the erroneous text so retained as it contravenes Art76(1) EPC (adds matter).
DeleteI do not think r56a is applicable to divisionals at all. The filling date of a divisional of the filling date of the parent (art 76(1)). It is "nailed down" and cannot be redated under r56a(3), so the whole correction procedure is impossible in my view.
DeleteGeorge, I think you’re right for the wrong reasons.
DeleteFiling date of DIV2 can definitely be changed based on R56a, but its effective date will remain the same if the filing date of DIV2 is before the grant of its parent.
I still see the "redating" in R56a(3) as conceptually incompatible with the concept of divisionals as shards of the parent inhereting its filing date.
DeleteBut I do not know of any relevant legal basis and too lazy to search. :)
Stefan, a divisional application is "deemed to have been filed on the date of filing of the earlier application and shall enjoy any right of priority" as per A.76(1). So changing its filing date would go against the definition of a divisional application in my view.
DeleteRule 56a applies mut. mut. to divisional applications. I was fortunate enough to have encountered the scenario in real life, so I didn't really question it in the exam whether it was possible to invoke R.56a(4) EPC for a divisional. Feels a bit unfair to test this though as it's a matter of nuanced interpretation of the EPC for which there does not appear to be GLs or case law (yet). Here's an extract from what the receiving section would send if picked up during formal examination.
Delete1. Rule 56 EPC: If the missing parts of the description and/or the missing drawings are filed within the time limit and the requirements of Rule 56(3) EPC are fulfilled, they shall be deemed to form part of the divisional application as filed (date of receipt).
Rule 56a EPC: If the correct application documents or parts are filed within the time limit and the requirements of Rule 56a(4) EPC are fulfilled, the correct application documents or parts shall be included in the application and the erroneously filed application documents or parts shall remain in the application.
In either case, there is no effect on the date of filing, the divisional application benefitting from the date of filing of the earlier application from which it is derived (Art. 76(1) EPC). The divisional application shall also keep its date of receipt for the purposes of Rule 36 EPC.
With respect to the requirements of Rule 56(3) EPC and Rule 56a(4) EPC, which are applied mutatis mutandis to divisional applications, the following applies:
a. If the divisional application claims priority, the missing parts of the description and/or drawings (Rule 56(3) EPC), or the correct application documents or parts (Rule 56a(4) EPC), as applicable, must be completely contained in the earlier application whose priority is claimed (Art. 88(1) EPC) and/or in the application from which the divisional application derives (Art. 76(1) EPC).
b. If the divisional application does not claim priority of an earlier application, the missing parts of the description and/or drawings (Rule 56(3) EPC), or the correct application documents or parts (Rule 56a(4) EPC), as applicable, must be completely contained in the earlier application trom which the divisional application derives (Art. 76(1) EPC).
2. The application of Rule 56 EPC to the subsequently filed parts of the description and/or drawings, or of Rule 56a EPC to the correct application documents or parts, i.e. accepting the late-filed parts or correct parts, as applicable, with or without shifting the date of receipt of the divisional application, does not prejudice the question of compliance of the application with Article 76(1), second sentence, EPC, which (if applicable) will be determined by the examining division.
Your attention is drawn to the fact that the divisional application would only be validly filed if, on the shifted date of receipt, the earlier application is still pending (Rule 36(1) EPC).
I have only been able to find this text you are copying in the form on the EPO site: https://link.epo.org/communications/F1114A_English.pdf
DeleteSo I was wrong.
But if EPO does not send an invitation, you are screwed, as you are automatically outside the 2M window. You are at their mercy and can only ask nicely. :)
I wonder what exactly is being tested here though.
What about the question about rubbers A and A1? I have written that an undisclosed disclaimer is not acceptable because the priority is invalid in the first place (partial priority + first application), which makes the earlier application 54(2) and not 54(3).
ReplyDeleteWhy would the prio be invalid? EP-0 was filed before EP-1?
DeletePriority was claimed from 1st application though, no partial priority either 🤔
DeleteAh darn, I see what you mean DH. Prio was claimed for from EP0 which was filed after the EP1. But isnt prio valid for A excl. A1?
DeleteEp1 was (couterintuitive in view of numbering) the earliear application and the 1st disclosure of a1. Ep-c (3rd filling) claimed prio from ep0 (2nd filling).
DeleteThus, for a1 - no prio and art 54(2) prior art from ep1 publication. I also opted for non-allowable undisclosed disclaimer here.
Man, I think you George and DH are right. What a double twist, I was sure I was going to get full points for that one, now probably zero....
DeleteSame question was asked in the 2021 paper and the answer was that undisclosed disclaimer is allowed
DeleteIn 2021 it was 54(3) prior art because of publication date of the 1st application. Now it is 54(2).
DeleteYes, that difference between 2021 and this question leads to two different answers. They got me!
DeleteEP1 (first application) discloses A1, EP0 (second application discloses A) and EP-C claims priority from EP0. EP0 is the first application disclosing A as EP1 discloses A1 only. Do I miss something?
DeleteIt's a kind of mix between partial priority and first application (was not too sure how to handle that but the logic way is to check first application for each part separately). In a way, EP-C also discloses A1, so it should claim priority form EP-1.
DeleteGeorge I think it is prior art under A54(3) since it was published after the effective date of EP-C which is the filing date of EP-0 because of priority claim. The answer to 2021 specifically discusses effective date.
DeleteEP0 and EP1were filed by the same applicant? I don’t remember anymore
Delete@anonymous Check the dates in 2021, the situation isn't the same. In 2021, the earliest application was published _after_ the last filed application, so it was a 54(3) regardless of the status of the priority. In this case, I fear that priority is not valid for A1, making EP-1 A.54(2) for subject matter A1 only (but 54(3) against subject matter "A excluding A1"). So the disclaimer is probably not allowed... (I didnt realize this on the exam though...)
DeleteI think George is right. The A1 part of EP-C has effective date the date of filing of EP-C since for this part EPO is not the first application. Thus, EP-1 is A. 54(2) prior art. I got this wrong. Just pray it is neutralized due to the GE text error.
DeleteI missed that EP1 and EP0 were filed by the same applicant…
DeleteI don’t think it was stated what was disclosed in EP0? just that EP-C disclosed A.
The question felt fishy because it was too easy. Under stress I couldn’t figure out where the trick was. There is a high chance it gets neutralized because of the error in the DE version. In previous years, such error lead to neutralization 100% of the times.
DeleteNo, nothing was said about what was disclosed in EP-0, I found that quite strange... But I guess it doesn't affect the final conclusion anyway. I really wonder why they named them like that, EP-0 which is later than EP-1... The question was tricky enough imo. I wonder if one get zero points for missing the non-valid prio aspect. Probably something like that as the answer is completely wrong in the end...
DeleteDo you know where the dedicated form provided by the Examination Secretariat can be found on the EQE webpage?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.epo.org/en/learning/eqe-epac/european-qualifying-examination-eqe
DeleteUnder ”EQE Online”
The complaint form can be found under "EQE online" in this link and must be submitted today before 23:59hrs: https://www.epo.org/en/learning/eqe-epac/european-qualifying-examination-eqe
DeleteWhat was the aswer pour D1-1 Q3 please ??
ReplyDeleteI said that EP-E was not sufficiently disclosed and that an opposition shall be filed on this ground, Article 100(b). There is case law saying that for an invention to be enabled, skilled person shall be able to perform over entire range which was not the case here. I was not too sure about how to handle the fact that the evidence was late-published, I think there is case law about that but I did not find it. Intuitively, if it's a scientific proof it does not matter when it was filed.
DeleteI had a similar answer. Cited https://www.epo.org/en/legal/case-law/2025/clr_ii_c_7_4.html as legal basis, don't know if that's accurate though.
DeleteI had problems with the exam questions for D1-1 and D1-2 taking several minutes to load - anyone else had the same problem? I have reported it, good if everyone having the same issue do as well today, to highlight the problem.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.epo.org/en/learning/eqe-epac/european-qualifying-examination-eqe.
ReplyDeletescroll down to "EQE online"
OPEN IT it and voila:
Complaint concerning the conduct of the examination
Candidates wishing to lodge a complaint pursuant to Rule 19 IPREE (see decision of the Supervisory Board) must do so on the day of the examination paper in question, by filling in the dedicated form:
Form for paper A (available on 05.03.2026, 9:30 - 23:59, CET)
Form for paper B (available on 10.03.2026, 9:30 - 23:59, CET)
Form for paper C (available on 12.03.2026, 9:30 - 23:59, CET)
Form for paper D (available on 03.03.2026, 9:30 - 23:59, CET)
Form for paper F (available on 02.03.2026, 9:30 - 23:59, CET)
Form for paper M1 (available on 09.03.2026, 9:30 - 23:59, CET)
Form for paper M2 (available on 03.03.2026, 9:30 - 23:59, CET)
For paper D in particular
ReplyDeletehttps://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=PW17qF7Ym02HBGrtdqSURJh0j9RoJJRKirf_rjC7sZFUQ0lJUzJBRVI4TFVKR0RVWkUxNFZBRUNXNC4u
For me ctrl-F, ctrl-C and ctrl-V worked fine.
ReplyDeleteThat’s odd - I’ve had people in this chat say that such commands not only don’t work but are not intended to ever work?
Deletectrl-F never worked for me
DeleteToying up whether to submit the complaint if it can’t be ascertained whether the functions were even supposed to work. Lack of shortcut functionality certainly cost me plenty of time, though.
DeleteUnder III-8 of the instructions to candidates, these functions should have worked if that function is supported. If they worked on the same equipment within the wiseflow compendium on past papers, I'd definitely complain.
DeleteDo you get extra points if you complain and you are right that technical difficulties cost time?
DeleteFor question 1a), did you guys say that the divisional is wrongly filed because the parent has not entered into EP-phase (no early entry clearly asked for by applicant and 31 months not expired)?
ReplyDeleteIn my view, it is possible to enter the national phase before the expiration of the 31-month deadline, but I was surprised that it was done so far in advance!
DeleteOn the other hand, I said that the filing was not valid because the elements of DIV1 extended beyond the content of the earlier application (metal/iron), but I think that is incorrect since this would not be challenged by the formalities officer at the time of filing, but only, for example, during opposition proceedings.
Yes, absent an explicit request the EP phase has not been entered per R159 EPC and Art twenty something PCT… so no EP application is pending from which to validly file a div… I believe.
DeleteYeah, the parent hadn’t entered the EP regional phase because it was filed before the 31m deadline but they didn’t request early processing, so the EPO can’t touch it, which means there wasn’t a pending EP application, and so DIV1 wasn’t validly filed.
DeleteA bit misleading that they expressed it as: A completed the acts under R.159(1) "in order for PCT-A to enter the European regional phase as Euro-PCT-A". But I guess that doesn't necessarily means that it entered on that date...
DeleteWhat about Question 4? In part a) I said that withdrawal shall be done through a representative before IB or EPO. But in part b) I was confused because I did not find any real difference between withdrawing before EPO and IB. Anything linked to signatures or a power of attorney?
ReplyDeleteI wrote (not sure if its right) that IB does not require a representative, at least that is what annex C for IB states. So the difference I found was that a rep. would need to be appointed before EPO as rO, but not before IB. But I could of course be wrong.
DeleteI only said that it would be preferable to send it to the IB rather than to the RO if he wishes to prevent publication (but we were very early, so it wasn’t particularly relevant).
DeleteThe only difference I could note is that EPO requires representation for all acts other than filing while IB doesn’t.
DeleteThere are several points you can mention to score marks, like the request must be signed by either applicant or his representative, it should be filed with 30m, in which language etc.
Does anyone know if, for M2, the passing mark must be achieved in each of the two parts separately or as a whole? Since the type of questions is the same, if the passing marks are separate, this results in different outcomes, depending on how the questions are grouped. PF
ReplyDelete