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?
DeleteYou can complain as much as you want for tech problem. It's useless. They will answer you with a copy and paste commuication.
DeleteMy understanding was that the proprietor's consent is not necessary when the new grounds are raised by the BoA, if they arise from amendments made in opposition, which is an exception to the principle of G10/91. My reference book (Baque, in French) cites T996/18, T862/16 and R16/13. In that case, the proprietor does not have the choice of giving consent or not, but must file a new request to comply with the notification from the Board, which will not be the same in the two situtations due to the principles of G1/99 on non-reformatio in pejus.
DeleteI'm not 100% sure of this considering what everyone else is saying on this blog :/
Paper 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
DeleteSimilarly, I suggested JP-CC by withdrawing the priority claim and instead claiming priority from EP-CC. EP-CC was the first application that discloses EP-CC's subject matter. So I argued that DE-CC is not actually the first application with respect to Art. 87
DeleteD1 parts were not well balanced, Comittee should take this in consideration
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.
DeleteHopefully they will let us download and print for Paper C part 1 before we start part 2.
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?
ReplyDeleteQ2 for sure
DeleteI'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.
There is basis in the guidelines for r.56a being applicable to divisional applications (see remarks in A-IV, 1.1).
DeleteWhat 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...
DeleteEP1 - filed March 2024 - rubber A1
DeleteEP0 - filed February 2025 - rubber A
EP1 - published October 2025 - rubber A1
EP-C - filed January 2026 - rubber A, claims priority to EP0
So the answer rests on whether there is a valid priority claim and EP1 belongs in the 54(3) field or not... I think I messed this question up under time pressure.
The exam secretariat has really screwed over M2 candidates. This exam is meant to be suitable for people with only 2 years professional experience.
Fully agree Tobius. Also seems not logical that we need to pass each part, and the all the hard ones were gathered in one of the parts. One missed question is so much more crucial than for the old format, where even D2 is included in a total score.
DeleteHello guys, for this second question I also start from Q4 of 2021. But the difference is that EP1 is a 54(2) not a 54(3) if I'm correct :
Delete"The subject matter “rubber A” can be conceptually divided into “rubber A1” and “rubber A excluding rubber A1” [G1/15].
For the subject matter “rubber A1”, EP0 is not a first application within the meaning of Article 87(1) EPC, because EP1, which also originates from applicant C, discloses the subject matter “rubber A1”.
Consequently, the claimed priority is not valid for the subject matter “rubber A1”, and the effective date is the filing date of EP-C, namely January 2026.
For the subject matter “rubber A excluding rubber A1”, EP0 is the first application and therefore the effective date [Article 89 EPC] is the filing date of EP0, namely February 2025.
EP1, which is a European patent application filed by applicant C, was filed and published before the effective date of the subject matter “rubber A1” of EP-C. For that subject matter, EP1 therefore constitutes prior art under Article 54(2) EPC.
However, a disclaimer may only be allowed in order to:
restore novelty over prior art under Article 54(3) EPC [G1/03],
restore novelty over an accidental disclosure under Article 54(2) EPC [G1/03], or
exclude subject matter falling under an exception pursuant to Articles 52 to 57 EPC.
In the present case, the subject matter “rubber A1” is disclosed by prior art within the meaning of Article 54(2) EPC by the same applicant, presumably in the same technical field, and it is therefore not possible to exclude it by way of a disclaimer."
I found this question particularly tricky, especially since the question does not explicitly state what EP0 actually discloses.
DeleteIf we assume that EP0 only discloses A but not explicitly A1, then I don't see the problem with the first inventor issue, because a generic disclosure does not automatically disclose every specific embodiment, which is what A1 is according to the question. Then EP1 remains the first invention for A1.
The problem with partial priority and the first inventor issue only arises if A1 is explicitly disclosed in EP0, right? This, together with the incorrect designation, made me very uncertain during the exam.
"The problem with partial priority and the first inventor issue only arises if A1 is explicitly disclosed in EP0, right?"
DeleteNo Anonymous I dont think so, whether A1 is disclosed or not in EP0, you still have partial priority for rubber A claimed in EP-C. (“rubber A1” and “rubber A excluding rubber A1”)
Do 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.
DeleteSame here, I also use A100(b), but I forgot to mention the publication date of D1. I also assumed that, if it's scientific proof, the filing date is irrelevant.
DeleteI personally cited 100b) for the same reasons as you, but also 100a) for lack of inventive step based on the following argument. What do you think?
Delete"It is also possible to invoke the ground under Article 100(a) EPC, in particular for lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC). The problem of obtaining a tile that is heat-resistant up to a temperature of 1300°C is in fact not solved over the entire scope of the claim, given the absence of substance C, whose presence document D1 shows to be necessary to solve the technical problem above 700°C."
@FME I provided the exact same arguments as you. It's something we'd absolutely do on the job so fingers crossed it has marks associated with it.
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.
ReplyDeleteSame!
Deletehttps://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?
DeleteCtrl+F worked for me on basically every page. Got a ton of points thanks to it on the PCT questions since I don't have any PCT material.
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...
DeleteR. 159 does not govern early processing.
DeleteYou're confusing early entry with early processing!! I didn't directly know the answer to this one but my reasoning was that for a PCT to become art.54(3) prior art only the filing fee, search fee and translation need to be filed, so not even all R.159(1) acts. So no need for early processing for a euro-pct to be considered a EP under Art.153(2) EPC.
DeleteSee GL G-IV 5.2
No, my intuition was wrong. Early processing is necessary before filing a divisional :’(
DeleteNot sure where you’re getting that confident assertion from Stefan but all of the commentary I could find on divisionals made it quite clear that EP entry (and thus early processing to actually enter the EP phase) *must* have occurred for a div to be filed…
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
ReplyDeleteFrom what I heard and from what is stated in the IPREE we must pass each part separately. It might make more sense when the new format is fully in place but seems very unfair this year when the questions were in the same format for both parts. In pretty sure I will fail due missing a lot of points on Q1 and Q2, while I think I did good on Q4 and Q5. So I’m gutted and it feels so unfair.
DeleteSame situation for me, that's why I asked. I think they will follow what is written in the IPREE. I hope they take into consideration the particular situation of this year, adjusting the passing mark accordingly. PF
DeleteYes, sincerely hope so. But my hope is pretty much gone, I completely missed on Q2 and did very poorly on Q1, so they would have to have it very low for me to pass…
DeleteI am also feeling the same - pessimistic about Part 1 which leads to Part 2, which I feel I performed strongly in, being pointless. My hope is that the pass mark for each part of the exam can be different, e.g. say 40% for Part 1 and 50% for Part 2.
DeleteThe M2 situation feels very unfair compared to compared to paper D, where candidates can pass with an overall mark of 50% (or even 45% in the case of compensable passes). So, perhaps you do poorly in one sub-part but then compensate elsewhere.
For M2, candidates can be screwed by poor performance in a single question, yet do very well in others. E.g., one may fail M2 with an overall grade of 60% across part 1 and part 2 (12/25 marks on part 1, 15/20 marks on part 2) when the pass rate is set at 50% for both parts.
@Omar, word! It seems very unfair. And as icing on the cake, if we would have done D instead of M2 and passed, we would have been exempted from all other exams than M3.
DeleteIPREE allows throttling of pass mark between 30% and 60% for M2. It's 50% and 75% for M1 for some reason. In light of all the significant issues with this paper for M2 candidates they need to do something.
DeleteTo me it looked like some information was missing.
ReplyDeleteWhat language was DIV-2 filed in? Or is this not relevant at all?
Who appealed the decision to maintain D+F? Both parties?
Did Garasu Paneru file a certificate of exhibition? Were we supposed to deal with both scenarios?
Is D+F an allowable intermediate generalisation for the situation where D+E+F was disclosed?
I think that was one of the things you were meant to realise, that because the proprietor were allowed their main request, they weren’t adversely affected and so the opponent was the sole appellant, so you have reformatio in peius, but then you have a situation with an exception to reformatio in peius - G1/99.
DeleteI don’t think the exhibition on Hawaii was on the list of officially recognised international exhibitions, so Art 55 EPC and the certificate is irrelevant.
DeleteIt even said, if I remember correctly, that it was a NATIONAL exhibition (at least in the German version).
DeletePaper draft with feet as usual. For D1-1 there was not enough time to finish and for D1-2 at the end you had nothing to do.
ReplyDeleteHow many years now for results?
ReplyDeleteLast year we got them in July...
DeleteHonestly, the mistake in D1-I, Q2 (at least in the DE-version of the exam that I took) threw me off quite a bit. I felt D1-I to be easier than D1-II due to the topics. On the other hand, D1-I seemed to be quite short timewise. Anyways, I felt confident about D1-I until the correction concerning D1/EP1 came in. I skipped D1-I Q1c) earlier to think about it later and was already going for Q2 early. I had my answer sketched on paper, thinking about the strange meaning of document "D1", the lack of date/publication/filing/etc. and wrapping my head about that situation (e.g. 54(2)/54(3)? What does that document mean anyways?) when suddenly the whole situation changed with the popup-message concerning the correction and I had to redo almost all of my work concerning Q2 prepared so far. This cost me a lot of time in part D1-I and also might have caused me skipping over relevant facts in the questions following. I suppose I lost at least 15 min. After correcting all that I had to go back to Q1c) and then tackle Q3 with the time I had left. Finished and submitted 3sec before deadline and was able to only read across everything once. Overall, this was very unpleasent in view of the severity of this exam and the meaning for everyone of us candidates.
ReplyDeleteD2 felt ok and quite fair, although it had some quirks. I'm not a "part D"-person (actually had to resit), but from the previous experience D2 is my stronger part, so this seemed ok for me.
What also suprised me: I filed a complaint yesterday (on time, using the online form at the EPO/EQE-site) but did not recieve any confirmation or aknowledgement via email. Those complaints need the personal EQE-registration number (so they know who is complaining) but seem to vanish is space after submission. Did anyone else experience this?
Re complaint
DeleteExperienced exactly the same. No confirmation or anything. Tried to click "send myself my answers" but the login failed and then possibility disappeared to thin air.
Q5. Isn't the time limit to pay Unitary patent renewal fees 30.7.2026 because European application was filed in July and the mention of the grant was published on 11 June 2025?
ReplyDeleteThe UP renewal fee due date becomes 18 August 2025 when the date of registration is issued under R7(1) UPR, as there was no UP existing when the renewal fee should have fallen due on 31 July 2025 - R13(5) UPR.
DeleteWhen the registration of the unitary patent is issued, due date for renewal fees change, but only for that year. I think this is what they tested with that question.
DeleteJust a general comment on the exam and the whole system:
ReplyDeleteFor me, once again, the whole exam situation (M2) with Wiseflow was not satisfactory. I completed the technical tests and everything worked perfectly. However, during the exam I did not have the functionality to edit my text or the copied questions because the function bar was not available. I contacted the invigilators, but I was more or less reprimanded and told that it was my responsibility to learn how Wiseflow works in advance and that they could not explain to me during the exam how the search function works. Sorry, but that was not my question, nor was it the reason I contacted them.
If I had sat the exam like in the old days, in a large room with a desk and all documents printed out, I would have had more opportunities to work through the topics properly than yesterday. And that is something that is really frustrating. I filed a complaint, but honestly, it probably will not help. In my opinion, the EPA may be modern, but the old exam structure was more practical than what we experienced today.
We are asked to complete a complex task, but we are not allowed to prepare ourselves properly, and we have to do everything under such time pressure that providing answers with the expected level of detail is hardly possible. Also regarding M2: why are we told that there will be a new M2 exam format, shown a mock exam that differs from what we actually had yesterday, and then given essentially D1 again, just with a different and, for all of us, unclear grading scheme?
And why are we given the same exercises as the candidates who sit D, where a different background knowledge is expected? For me, the whole situation is not fair, and the transition to the new format has been implemented too early. Even when I read the comments regarding different topics here, I am not sure whether someone with only two years of experience is able to discuss these matters in comparable depth.
All of us are trying to pass one of the four required exams (A, B, C, D or M1 to M4) on the way to becoming a European patent attorney, some in the old format and some in the new format. D or M2 is one necessary step. But I have the feeling that the level of difficulty is significantly different and not fair although the same tasks are assigned.
Also, there are obvious errors in the German version. Sorry, but did nobody proofread the exam in advance? How is that possible, again? And we are required to write our answers in systems that do not work properly and that give the feeling of working back in the 1990s and unthinkable, we would allow ourselves such a faux pax, which could happen, because its just a tippo and with the given systems a verification of the written text is not easy, because it was a system compared to a ".txt file".
Can anyone tell me whether any question will be neutralized? :)
ReplyDeleteQ2 should definitely be neutralized! I started with Q2 because it seemed like the easier question, I wasted so much time trying to figure out what they want us to write. I left Q2 after 33 minutes of suffering and started working on Q3. At 10:14 they send us the correction. Ofcourse I didn’t have time to go back and work on Q2 again. What a shame, it would’ve been a nice and easy question to solve if it wasn’t for this stupid mistake.
DeleteWhat happens when one forgot to mention EPC and PCT at the end?
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2 should be neutralized. Cannot fathom how they’d keep it in the exam.
ReplyDeleteI really hope it gets neutralised. It doesn’t seem fair that they assigned the priority numbers in a way that makes it so easy to make mistakes under time pressure...
DeleteWell, to be honest, neutralizing that question seems not fair either. If (also my case) time was lost (due to that late announciation of the mistake) by a candidate and still assumingly the the "corrected" question was solved ok due to his/her time-management or coincidence in his/her order to work through the questions, neutralizing would take valid marks from that person. I discussed this with two coworkers and we couldn't find a solution.
DeleteNeuralizing (Q2: 0 marks for everyone): bad for anyone who solved it
Downgrading the exam (100 - marks of Q2): bad for people who want/need to compensate A/B/C with 55+ if the exam is then worth 92 marks (if I remember Q2 correctly) and passing would be assumed for 41(compensable)/46 marks
Full marks for everyone: maybe the best solution but still unfair for the people who solved this question well, also "unfair" for people who didn't solve it well with respect to anyone else.
This just must not happen under normal circumstances. I assume this cost everyone between 15-30min depending on the order of working through the questions.
I totally agree with your last sentence. I really don't understand how such a mistake can happen and why it was not spotted by those drafting the exam. When we drafted exams at university, it was read by at least 3 people several times and independently and then discussed together, to make sure that there were no such mistakes, unclear wording etc. - and after the exam each student was able to look at the marking, the reasons for getting a certain number of marks and be able to discuss it. I think not even having the opportunity to see, how you ended up with the marks, is unfair in itself and a total lack of transparency.
DeleteI started with that particular question and wrote a gibberish answer before I went to another question. After the warning they sent, I went back to question2 and corrected by answer. Lost about 25 minutes and barely had time to wrote a few sentences in question3. I did not file a complaint because I was gutted after the exam. I accept nothing less that full marks on this question, this doesnt even compensate the time i lost and makrs i could have scored on the other questions
DeleteDo you know when they normally announce that a question is neutralised?
ReplyDeleteYou will find out in July
DeleteIf Q2 would get neutralised, how would they calculate the marks? I made Q2 first in the English version, and it was the only question which I felt certain about. Would those precious points go to waste, or would they just award everyone full points?
ReplyDeleteLast year, for the paper F, they "removed" the question. So we would be graded on 19 points instead of 25.
DeleteCouldn't they just neutralize it for the German version? I also took the exam in French, and I wouldn't want my points to be neutralized...
DeleteThey would give everyone the full marks for this question. This is the only way they can neutralize it, unlike in F paper where it is possible to be graded on 19 instead of 25 marks.
DeleteFME - I think it would be impossible to neutralise the question only for candidates in one language. If they were to award everybody who answered in German full marks, then it would unfair on those who sat the exam in English or French. If they removed the question for only those answering in German, then those candidates suffer as they have fewer opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge.
DeleteThere's no easy solution. I suppose the fairest thing is to award everybody full marks, but that also undermines the integrity of the paper. Ultimately, the examining body only have themselves to blame. I can't see how such a mistake can be made in an exam - it is surely so obvious that one would spot it immediately upon review? Isn't there an EPO employee who tests the exam without seeing it beforehand?
I wonder when DeltaPatents will upload their answers/comment on the exam?
ReplyDeleteWe're working on it!
DeleteThanks Stefanie. How much longer to wait?
DeleteFor D-I, Q1(a), did anyone wonder what the residency was for the applicant entering the EP regional phase, and filing the div application?
ReplyDeleteI thought they could either be an EPC state resident or a JP resident. The latter seems to be more likely given that the PCT application was filed in JP, and if my memory serves me right it was filed at the JP patent office as rO? Given that "foreign applicants" are only allowed to perform the acts of entering the regional phase under R. 159 EPC, and then required to appoint a prof. rep., it seemed that they could not validly file a European divisional as it was not done by a professional representative... although perhaps I am missing a key detail from the question.
Any update on model answer publication? Would be great if you could release it soon...
ReplyDeleteWe're working on it. Q6 is generating a lot of consideration
DeleteHow are we supposed to come up with an answer in 30 min, if it takes Deltapatent 1 day!
DeleteThat was a trick question.
ReplyDeleteEuro-PCT can only be a parent for a divisional after requesting early processing of the Euro-PCT or after the expiry of the 31m period. so DIV1 was not validly filed.
lol, that's really scummy behaviour from the exam setters if they include trick questions like that. the UK exams are much more fair and don't try to catch people out - that doesnt benefit anybody
DeleteTricky indeed... The wording "On 9 October 2024, A completed the acts required under Rule 159(1) EPC in order for PCTA to enter the European regional phase as Euro-PCT-A." made me believe that early processing was requested, that "in order for PCTA to enter" meant that it actually did indeed enter when the acts were completed. But not native in English, so guess it can mean "in order for PCTA to enter..... a couple of months later".
DeleteEspecially scummy behavior for the M2 candidates sitting with 2 years professional experience.
DeleteI have more than 5 years of professional exprience, this is my second time preparing and sitting paper D and I missed this. Really unfair for M2 sitter!
DeleteCompletely agree... the question was phrased to trip people up. I missed it too
DeleteI missed it too, I was convinced from how it was phrased that it had already entered the ep phase
DeleteI still have not lost all hope that what was acutally meant was that it had already entered the EP phase...
DeleteI am an M2 candidate who took all the advice and started preparing early in September. I did the EPO's daily D-questions course and took an external course, went through all D1 exams from the last 5 years, did the D-book selection questions, tabbed all my materials, and generally considered myself well-prepared for M2. Oh boy, was I wrong.
ReplyDeleteFeel exactly the same and did exactly the same as you. I was also lucky enough to study alongside a group of very well prepared and switched on individuals (including an ex-EPO examiner with 6 years experience) and nobody thought M2 part 1 went well. I feel like M2 first sitters are being penalised for the failures of the exam secretariat not being able to prepare a bespoke M2 exam in time. They shoe-horned M2 candidates into paper D and they made the questions MORE difficult than last year…
Delete