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!
Obviously, DP needs to come up with an ideal answer, while we are asked to provide a good enough one. :)
ReplyDeleteIf it was indeed intended to mean that the app had entered the EP phase (or worse if some of the languages had it worded as such - to me, the English language question referred only to Rule 159 EPC and so didn’t mislead that the EP phase had been entered) the this question should also be neutralised (or both trains of logic rewarded). If FR and DE read as they did in EN then I think the question clearly by design leaves it for the candidate to judge as to whether the EP phase has yet been entered.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree regarding the invigilator and WISEflow software.
ReplyDeleteThe software is RIDDLED with issues, demonstrated time and time again by users having issues every year. Yet, somehow, it is the responsibility of the candidate to have the software function properly. Raising any technical problem, as I also did, leads to the "technical invigilator" providing nothing more than additional disturbances.
I completely agree regarding the invigilator and WISEflow software.
ReplyDeleteThe software is RIDDLED with issues, demonstrated time and time again by users having issues every year. Yet, somehow, it is the responsibility of the candidate to have the software function properly. Raising any technical problem, as I also did, leads to the "technical invigilator" providing nothing more than additional disturbances.
Removing the marks as a way of neutralising would be wholly unfair on those who spent significant time on the question at the detriment of Q3.
ReplyDeleteI also wonder about the disruption caused by the notification. Personally it lost me my train of thought and returned to that question to examine it and double check whether anything applied to my version.
Did you complain?
ReplyDeleteOf course, but I've limited faith in the efficacy of complaints, or whether they'd take CTRL functions not being available seriously as a mitigating (time-wasting) factor.
DeleteI wonder whether mentioning the relevance of whether it was an official exhibition and to check whether it was and if so if a certain of exhibition was filed in due time to prevent prejudicial disclosure would be enough to garnish any marks there…
ReplyDeleteIn previous papers where errors have been caused by translation errors in one paper but not the other two, the marks were neutralised and all candidates were awarded full marks for that question. So people who answered correctly won't miss out on those marks and be in a worse position. Also, each candidate has access to all three papers - I'm not certain how it could be confirmed who used what paper without trawling through hours of wiseflow recordings (if our screens are even recorded).
ReplyDeletemaybe by the language of the answer script? lol
DeleteFor those other exams where questions with errors like this occurred, do you have any idea if a warning popped up like in our exam?
DeleteYou would think after all this time, they would learn to proofread papers properly... Awarding full marks to everyone for a question downgrades the credibility of the exam, not that I will be complaining if it happens considering the overall difficulty level.
DeleteI hope the examiners at least start refraining from their usual smug comments about how ill-prepared the candidates are in the examiners' report, considering how unsuitable this paper was to test candidates' actual fitness to practice
@French candidate: Preach! I would not enjoy reading "Although Question 1 was related to an easy-peasy-straightforward and standard topic about entering the regional phase before the EPO, to the total chock to the exam committee, many candidates performed like they never had a glance at the EPC" after taking this exam...
DeleteDevil's advocate: reading proficiency and writing proficiency are not necessarily equivalent/proportional...
DeleteI'd hoped they wouldn't go overboard with difficulty, especially since it was supposed to be suitable for candidates with around two years of experience, so I was at least expecting an "average" D1 paper. I'm feeling pretty discouraged right now, and honestly dreading what comes next with the 7.5-hour monster that is M3 and M4 (I suppose we could resit the "real" M2 next year together M3+M4). Being test rabbits for a new system is stressful enough on its own: all the uncertainty around how the papers will be scored, etc. and they definitely didn't make it any easier with M2 this year.
ReplyDeleteCould question 6 be neutralized?
ReplyDeletei think the whole paper should be neutralised. full marks for everyone!
DeleteOn what grounds? I personally ran out of time so couldn't properly attempt Q6 so would be interested to hear what issues arose with it.
DeleteIt's a relief the Delta Patents tutors are struggling with this question. It feels a little unfair to ask this question given there doesn't seem to be a particularly clear answer that can be arrived at within 30-45 minutes. It will be interesting to see what route you go down and also ultimately how this is marked.
ReplyDeleteQ6 had traps embedded in traps, you think you've spotted a trap only to find yourself fallen in another trap.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, they really need to reassess at whether they're testing legal ability or time-bending powers in this exam.
ReplyDeleteSeems outrageous for CTRL functions to be working in some people's wiseflows and not others... It's not a small time saving, either, copy and pasting in D2 in particular is potentially dozens of minutes saved.
ReplyDeleteThis whole crazy (but pretty standard, to be honest) situation with working/not working search/copying, with errors in exam papers in some languages and with subsequent neutralizations is especially questionable in new M exams with variable passing rates. Now all (dis)advantages of any subgroup directly affect the passing chances for each candidate, which brings along some uncomfortable implications. For example, when previously the Exam Committee could say something like "nobody promised that you will be able to Ctrl-C or Ctrl-F everywhere", now those who are able to do so push the passing rate up and directly diminish the passing chances for the unlucky folks.
DeleteNeutralizations turn into a can of worms too by raising the question of who passed at whose expense as a result...
I appreciate the benefits of the flexible passing rates, especially in the transition period, but the aspects outlined above are worrisome.
Anybody else find themselves failing to comment in the end on the product by process claims, or on insufficiency issues as they relate to priority claims... I wonder how by many marks that would hamstring a D2 answer *gulp*
ReplyDeleteI'm on the same boat here. I see multiple disturbing aspects to this sadistic debacle, which feels more like Squid Game than a professional qualification exam. Is this M2 really what is expected of the candidates with 2 years of experience? This is WAY beyond anything I've seen in the previous Pre-Exams. What fit-to-practice criteria are being assessed by including the deliberately misleading wordings and withholding certain relevant information (like why wouldn't you know the content of your own priority application in real life) clearly intended to throw candidates off under time pressure? I guess the committee will play with the markings to bring the M2 passing rate to an "acceptable" level. Remember the arbitrary partial points/no partial points from last year's F-module? At this point, they might as well just organize a lottery system instead.
ReplyDeletePretty sure Q2 is based on some rather exotic T decision. It reminds me of T 0282/12 hn: 'For reasons of consistency, the rationale of decision G 1/15 (concept of partial priority) must also apply in the context of deciding whether an application from which priority is claimed is the first application within the meaning of Article 87(1) EPC.' And here there’s an additional twist with the undisclosed disclaimer.
ReplyDeleteI find it somewhat excessive to expect candidates in Paper M2 to solve, in just roughly 20 minutes (or was it 6 points?) , a case that was actually dealt with in opposition and subsequent appeal proceedings.
The phrase "in order to" describes the purpose of an action. E.g., I study "in order to" pass exams, does not mean that said exams have been passed or even taken. The purpose of completing the acts of Rule 159(1) EPC was therefore to enter the European regional phase, but there was nothing in the question to explicitly suggest that the European regional phase had been entered with a request for early processing. As the Q did not mention requesting early processing and the 31-month deadline was miles away, the inference was that he Euro-PCT had not been processed early. However, in coming to this conclusion, I had the benefit of English as my first language. The fact matrix ought to have been clearer, especially as this paper is set in multiple languages and there is not time to consider the nuance of language choice. I think that knowledge of the law and applying it to a set of clear facts should be tested, not one's ability to understand grammar to decipher an unclear fact matrix.
ReplyDeleteYes, you are correct, that was probably what was tested.
DeleteI got sidetracked as I probably don’t fully understand the ”in order to” as you mention, but also that they phrased the question stating that DIV1 was filed ”based on Euro-PCT-A”, and Euro-PCT-A is what they call the application after entry (”…to enter the European regional phase as Euro-PCT-A”). So I thought, if not entered, there would be no entered Euro-PCT-A. But I understand now that I read too much into the question or probably interpreted it in a strange way.
This year is a bit different than the neuralization in 2022, as the the error was informed during the exam. However, a neutralization still seems to be fair/necessary (given that enough people complain), as changing the question on the flight could have made people that already started with answering it lose time.
ReplyDeleteSee Tutors’ Report on the EQE 2022 (https://information.patentepi.org/issue-4-2022/tutors-report-on-the-eqe-2022.html):
There was a problem with D1, Q5 for which all candidates received full marks......
A tutor asked whether why the Committee or the Examination Board had not informed all candidates during the Exam that there was an error in the English version and how it had to be corrected, so that the exam could have continued, as was done in paper times, such that there would not have been a need for any neutralization. Tiem indicated that this was a small question, such that changing the question on the flight could have made people that already started with answering it lose time. Also, D1.1 2021 learned that giving extra time in the WISEflow system also does not always work and has complications.
This year is a bit different than the neuralization in 2022, as the the error was informed during the exam. However, a neutralization still seems to be fair/necessary (given that enough people complain), as changing the question on the flight could have made people that already started with answering it lose time.
ReplyDeleteSee Tutors’ Report on the EQE 2022 (https://information.patentepi.org/issue-4-2022/tutors-report-on-the-eqe-2022.html):
There was a problem with D1, Q5 for which all candidates received full marks......
A tutor asked whether why the Committee or the Examination Board had not informed all candidates during the Exam that there was an error in the English version and how it had to be corrected, so that the exam could have continued, as was done in paper times, such that there would not have been a need for any neutralization. Tiem indicated that this was a small question, such that changing the question on the flight could have made people that already started with answering it lose time. Also, D1.1 2021 learned that giving extra time in the WISEflow system also does not always work and has complications.
This year is a bit different than 2022, as the the error was informed during the exam. However, a neutralization still seems to be fair/necessary (given that enough people complain), as changing the question on the flight could have made people that already started with answering it lose time.
ReplyDeleteSee Tutors’ Report on the EQE 2022 (https://information.patentepi.org/issue-4-2022/tutors-report-on-the-eqe-2022.html):
There was a problem with D1, Q5 for which all candidates received full marks......
A tutor asked whether why the Committee or the Examination Board had not informed all candidates during the Exam that there was an error in the English version and how it had to be corrected, so that the exam could have continued, as was done in paper times, such that there would not have been a need for any neutralization. Tiem indicated that this was a small question, such that changing the question on the flight could have made people that already started with answering it lose time. Also, D1.1 2021 learned that giving extra time in the WISEflow system also does not always work and has complications.
This year is a bit different than the neuralization in 2022, as the the error was informed during the exam. However, a neutralization still seems to be fair/necessary (given that enough people complain), as changing the question on the flight could have made people that already started with answering it lose time.
ReplyDeleteSee Tutors’ Report on the EQE 2022 (https://information.patentepi.org/issue-4-2022/tutors-report-on-the-eqe-2022.html):
There was a problem with D1, Q5 for which all candidates received full marks......
A tutor asked whether why the Committee or the Examination Board had not informed all candidates during the Exam that there was an error in the English version and how it had to be corrected, so that the exam could have continued, as was done in paper times, such that there would not have been a need for any neutralization. Tiem indicated that this was a small question, such that changing the question on the flight could have made people that already started with answering it lose time. Also, D1.1 2021 learned that giving extra time in the WISEflow system also does not always work and has complications.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe neutralization situation is a bit different than 2022, as the error was informed during the Exam (2022 wasn't). However, neutralization still seems to be fair & necessary, as changing the question on the flight could have made people that already started with answering it lose time (every one konws how significant the time is for this exam).
ReplyDeleteSee Tutors’ Report on the EQE 2022 (https://information.patentepi.org/issue-4-2022/tutors-report-on-the-eqe-2022.html):
There was a problem with D1, Q5 for which all candidates received full marks...
A tutor asked whether why the Committee or the Examination Board had not informed all candidates during the Exam that there was an error in the English version and how it had to be corrected, so that the exam could have continued, as was done in paper times, such that there would not have been a need for any neutralization. Tiem indicated that this was a small question, such that changing the question on the flight could have made people that already started with answering it lose time. Also, D1.1 2021 learned that giving extra time in the WISEflow system also does not always work and has complications.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe neutralization situation is a bit different than 2022, as the error was informed during the Exam (2022 wasn't). However, neutralization still seems to be fair & necessary, as changing the question on the flight could have made people that already started with answering it lose time (every one konws how significant the time is for this exam).
ReplyDeleteSee Tutors’ Report on the EQE 2022 (https://information.patentepi.org/issue-4-2022/tutors-report-on-the-eqe-2022.html):
There was a problem with D1, Q5 for which all candidates received full marks...
A tutor asked whether why the Committee or the Examination Board had not informed all candidates during the Exam that there was an error in the English version and how it had to be corrected, so that the exam could have continued, as was done in paper times, such that there would not have been a need for any neutralization. Tiem indicated that this was a small question, such that changing the question on the flight could have made people that already started with answering it lose time. Also, D1.1 2021 learned that giving extra time in the WISEflow system also does not always work and has complications.