I85PREP
⌘ K
EQE Pre-Exam study materials
EQE Pre-Exam study resources

EQE Pre-Exam practice questions

One question at a time. Build your EQE Pre-Exam understanding.

First 50 of 190 questions. Each one lists the choices, the correct answer, and an explanation. The checker at the top of this page saves progress in this browser when it is available.

Continue in the practice tool above to load more questions, 50 at a time.

Question 1Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

A European patent application is filed at the EPO. Under Article 80 EPC and Rule 40, what is the minimum that must be present for a date of filing to be accorded?

  1. An indication that a European patent is sought, information identifying the applicant or allowing contact, and a description or reference to a previously filed application Correct answer.
  2. A complete set of claims and payment of the filing fee
  3. A signed power of attorney and the search fee
  4. A translation into all three official EPO languages

Explanation

Under Article 80 EPC together with Rule 40(1), a date of filing requires only: an indication that a European patent is sought; information identifying the applicant or allowing the applicant to be contacted; and a description or a reference to a previously filed application. Claims are not required for the filing date.

Question 2Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

An applicant filed a first application at a national office on 3 March 2024. By when must a European patent application claiming priority from that first filing be filed to validly benefit from the priority date under Article 87 EPC?

  1. Within 6 months, i.e. by 3 September 2024
  2. Within 12 months, i.e. by 3 March 2025 Correct answer.
  3. Within 18 months, i.e. by 3 September 2025
  4. Within 31 months, i.e. by 3 October 2026

Explanation

Article 87(1) EPC grants a right of priority during a period of 12 months from the date of filing of the first application. A European application filed within that 12-month period (here by 3 March 2025) may validly claim priority.

Question 3Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Within what period after the mention of the grant of a European patent is published in the European Patent Bulletin may any person file an opposition under Article 99 EPC?

  1. Two months
  2. Four months
  3. Nine months Correct answer.
  4. Twelve months

Explanation

Under Article 99(1) EPC, notice of opposition may be filed by any person within nine months of the publication of the mention of the grant in the European Patent Bulletin. The opposition is not deemed filed until the opposition fee is paid within that period.

Question 4Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

A decision of an Examining Division refusing a European patent application is notified on 10 April 2026. Under Article 108 EPC, what are the deadlines for the notice of appeal and the statement of grounds?

  1. Notice of appeal and grounds both within 9 months of notification
  2. Notice of appeal within 1 month and grounds within 2 months of notification
  3. Notice of appeal within 4 months and grounds within 6 months of notification
  4. Notice of appeal within 2 months and grounds within 4 months of notification Correct answer.

Explanation

Article 108 EPC requires notice of appeal to be filed (and the appeal fee paid) within two months of notification of the decision, and the written statement setting out the grounds of appeal to be filed within four months of notification.

Question 5Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Under Rule 70 EPC, the request for examination of a European patent application must be filed within which period?

  1. Six months of the date on which the European Patent Bulletin mentions the publication of the European search report Correct answer.
  2. Two months of the filing date
  3. Nine months of the priority date
  4. Twelve months of the date of grant

Explanation

Under Rule 70(1) EPC, the request for examination must be made within six months of the date on which the European Patent Bulletin mentions the publication of the European search report. The examination fee must be paid within the same period.

Question 6Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

An applicant misses a time limit set by the EPO for replying to a communication from the Examining Division. Which remedy under Article 121 EPC is, in principle, first available to remedy the loss of rights?

  1. Re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC
  2. Further processing under Article 121 EPC Correct answer.
  3. Correction under Rule 139 EPC
  4. An appeal under Article 108 EPC

Explanation

Further processing under Article 121 EPC is the standard, no-fault remedy for missing a time limit vis-a-vis the EPO. It is requested by paying the further processing fee and completing the omitted act within two months of notification of the loss of rights. Re-establishment is only available when further processing is excluded.

Question 7Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Under Article 14 EPC, a European patent application may be filed in any language, but it must be processed in one of the three official languages. Which are the three official languages of the EPO?

  1. English, French and Italian
  2. English, Spanish and German
  3. English, French and German Correct answer.
  4. French, German and Dutch

Explanation

Under Article 14(1) EPC, the official languages of the European Patent Office are English, French and German. An application filed in another language must be translated into one of these, which then becomes the language of the proceedings.

Question 8Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

When is the mention of grant of a European patent deemed effective, and from when does the nine-month opposition period run, under Article 97 and Article 99 EPC?

  1. From the date the applicant pays the grant fee
  2. From the date of the decision to grant by the Examining Division
  3. From the date the translations of the claims are filed
  4. From the date on which the mention of the grant is published in the European Patent Bulletin Correct answer.

Explanation

Under Article 97(3) EPC the decision to grant takes effect on the date the mention of grant is published in the European Patent Bulletin, and under Article 99(1) the nine-month opposition period runs from that publication date.

Question 9Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

A European patent application is published under Article 93 EPC. As a general rule, when does publication take place?

  1. Eighteen months after the date of filing or, if priority is claimed, after the earliest priority date Correct answer.
  2. As soon as possible after the filing date
  3. Nine months after grant
  4. Thirty-one months after the priority date

Explanation

Under Article 93(1) EPC, the EPO publishes a European patent application as soon as possible after the expiry of eighteen months from the date of filing or, if priority has been claimed, from the earliest priority date.

Question 10Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Under Rule 36 EPC, a divisional application may be filed in respect of any pending earlier European patent application. Which statement correctly describes when a divisional may be filed?

  1. Only after grant of the parent application
  2. While the earlier (parent) application is still pending Correct answer.
  3. Only within nine months of publication of the parent
  4. At any time, even after the parent is finally refused or withdrawn

Explanation

Under Rule 36(1) EPC, a divisional application may be filed only in relation to a pending earlier European patent application. Pendency ends, for example, on grant, withdrawal, refusal becoming final, or deemed withdrawal.

Question 11Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

An applicant wishes to claim priority from an earlier application. Under Article 88 and Rule 52 EPC, the priority declaration and copy of the previous application must generally be provided. Which statement is correct?

  1. Priority can be claimed from an application filed up to 18 months earlier
  2. Priority may only be claimed from another European application
  3. A declaration of priority must indicate the date, State and file number of the previous application Correct answer.
  4. The priority document is never required to be filed at the EPO

Explanation

Under Article 88(1) and Rule 52 EPC, an applicant claiming priority must make a declaration of priority stating the date of the previous filing, the State in or for which it was made, and the file number. The right of priority must be from a first filing made within the preceding 12 months.

Question 12Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Renewal fees for a European patent application are governed by Article 86 and Rule 51 EPC. When does the obligation to pay annual renewal fees to the EPO first arise?

  1. In respect of the second year, from publication
  2. In respect of the first year, from the priority date
  3. Only after grant, paid to national offices
  4. In respect of the third year, calculated from the date of filing Correct answer.

Explanation

Under Article 86(1) and Rule 51(1) EPC, renewal fees are payable to the EPO in respect of the third year and each subsequent year, calculated from the date of filing of the application. After grant, renewal fees are paid to the national offices of the designated states.

Question 13Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Under Article 123(2) EPC, a European patent application or patent may not be amended in such a way that it contains subject-matter which extends beyond what?

  1. The content of the application as filed Correct answer.
  2. The claims as originally filed only
  3. The scope of the granted claims
  4. The disclosure of the priority document

Explanation

Article 123(2) EPC prohibits amendments that introduce subject-matter extending beyond the content of the application as filed (the whole disclosure: description, claims and drawings). This is the 'added matter' or 'gold standard' test.

Question 14Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

After grant, an opponent argues that the patent proprietor amended the claims in a way that broadened the protection. Which provision prohibits broadening the protection conferred after grant?

  1. Article 123(2) EPC
  2. Article 123(3) EPC Correct answer.
  3. Article 84 EPC
  4. Article 54 EPC

Explanation

Article 123(3) EPC prohibits amending the claims of a granted European patent in such a way as to extend the protection it confers. This protects third parties who rely on the granted scope.

Question 15Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Under Article 84 EPC, the claims of a European patent application must satisfy which requirements?

  1. They must be novel and involve an inventive step
  2. They must be filed in all three official languages
  3. They must define the matter for which protection is sought, be clear and concise, and be supported by the description Correct answer.
  4. They must not contain more than fifteen claims

Explanation

Article 84 EPC requires that the claims define the matter for which protection is sought, that they be clear and concise, and that they be supported by the description. Clarity and support are formal patentability requirements distinct from novelty and inventive step.

Question 16Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Under Article 54(2) EPC, the state of the art for assessing novelty comprises everything made available to the public before which date?

  1. The date of grant of the patent
  2. The date the search report is issued
  3. The publication date of the application
  4. The date of filing of the European patent application (or priority date, if claimed) Correct answer.

Explanation

Under Article 54(2) EPC, the state of the art comprises everything made available to the public by written or oral description, by use, or in any other way, before the date of filing of the European patent application. Where a valid priority is claimed, the relevant date is the priority date (Article 89).

Question 17Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Under Article 54(3) EPC, the content of a European patent application filed earlier but published on or after the filing date of a later application is relevant only for which purpose?

  1. Novelty only Correct answer.
  2. Both novelty and inventive step
  3. Inventive step only
  4. Neither novelty nor inventive step

Explanation

Article 54(3) EPC includes the whole content of an earlier-filed but later-published European application in the state of the art for the purpose of assessing novelty only. Such documents are expressly excluded from the assessment of inventive step under Article 56.

Question 18Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Under Article 55 EPC, a disclosure of the invention is not taken into consideration (non-prejudicial disclosure) if it occurred no earlier than six months before filing and was due to which circumstance?

  1. An ordinary academic publication by the inventor
  2. An evident abuse in relation to the applicant, or display at an officially recognised international exhibition Correct answer.
  3. Any disclosure by a third party
  4. Disclosure in an earlier patent application

Explanation

Article 55(1) EPC provides that a disclosure within six months preceding the filing is non-prejudicial only if it was due to (a) an evident abuse in relation to the applicant or its legal predecessor, or (b) display at an officially recognised international exhibition within the Paris Convention on International Exhibitions.

Question 19Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

The EPO assesses inventive step under Article 56 EPC using the problem-and-solution approach. What is the correct first step of that approach?

  1. Formulate the objective technical problem
  2. Ask whether the skilled person would have arrived at the invention
  3. Determine the closest prior art Correct answer.
  4. Identify the distinguishing features of the claim

Explanation

In the EPO problem-and-solution approach, the first step is to determine the closest prior art. One then identifies the distinguishing features and their technical effect, formulates the objective technical problem, and finally applies the could-would test to ask whether the skilled person would have arrived at the claimed solution.

Question 20Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Which of the following is expressly excluded from patentability under Article 53 EPC?

  1. Inventions in the field of biotechnology
  2. Any invention relating to chemical compounds
  3. All computer-implemented inventions
  4. Inventions whose commercial exploitation would be contrary to ordre public or morality; plant or animal varieties; and methods for treatment by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body Correct answer.

Explanation

Article 53 EPC excludes from patentability: (a) inventions contrary to ordre public or morality; (b) plant or animal varieties and essentially biological processes for their production; and (c) methods of treatment by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body (though products for such use remain patentable).

Question 21Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Under Article 52(2) and (3) EPC, which of the following is NOT regarded as an invention as such, and is therefore excluded from patentability only to the extent the application relates to it as such?

  1. A schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games, or doing business Correct answer.
  2. A new mechanical gearbox
  3. A pharmaceutical composition
  4. An industrial manufacturing process

Explanation

Article 52(2) EPC lists items not regarded as inventions, including discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods, aesthetic creations, schemes/rules/methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and computer programs. Under Article 52(3) the exclusion applies only to the extent the application relates to such subject-matter as such.

Question 22Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Statement to evaluate: 'For a claim to lack novelty under Article 54 EPC, a single prior-art document must directly and unambiguously disclose all the features of the claim.' Is this statement correct?

  1. Incorrect; novelty can be destroyed by combining two documents
  2. Correct; a novelty-destroying disclosure must disclose all claimed features directly and unambiguously in a single document Correct answer.
  3. Incorrect; novelty only requires disclosure of the essential features
  4. Correct, but only if the document is a European patent application

Explanation

Under established EPO practice, a claim lacks novelty only if a single prior-art disclosure discloses, directly and unambiguously, each and every feature of the claim. Combining the teachings of separate documents is not permitted for novelty (that combination is relevant to inventive step).

Question 23Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

A claim reads: 'A cup comprising a body and a handle.' A prior-art document discloses a cup with a body, a handle, and a lid. Considering novelty under Article 54 EPC, what is the effect of the open term 'comprising'?

  1. The claim is novel because the prior art has a lid that the claim does not mention
  2. The claim is unclear and cannot be assessed for novelty
  3. The claim lacks novelty because 'comprising' is open and the prior-art cup contains all claimed features (body and handle) Correct answer.
  4. The lid in the prior art makes the comparison impossible

Explanation

The transitional term 'comprising' is open-ended: it requires the claimed features to be present but does not exclude additional features. Since the prior-art cup has a body and a handle (and a lid in addition), it discloses all the claimed features, so the claim lacks novelty.

Question 24Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

A claim is directed to 'A composition consisting of components A and B.' Prior art discloses a composition with components A, B and C. Using the closed term 'consisting of', is the claim novel over this prior art?

  1. No, because A and B are both present in the prior art
  2. Yes, but only if C is essential to the invention
  3. No, because composition claims can never be novel over a disclosed mixture
  4. Yes, because 'consisting of' is closed and excludes the presence of component C, so the prior-art composition falls outside the claim Correct answer.

Explanation

The transitional term 'consisting of' is closed: it limits the composition to the listed components and excludes any others. Because the prior-art composition additionally contains component C, it does not fall within the closed claim, so the claim is novel over that disclosure.

Question 25Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

In the claims-analysis part of the Pre-Exam, a dependent claim must be assessed. Which statement about dependent claims under Rule 43(4) EPC is correct?

  1. A dependent claim includes all the features of the claim to which it refers and adds further features, so it is narrower in scope Correct answer.
  2. A dependent claim is broader than the independent claim it refers to
  3. A dependent claim need not include the features of the claim it refers to
  4. A dependent claim and its independent claim always have identical scope

Explanation

Under Rule 43(4) EPC a dependent claim contains all the features of the claim (or claims) to which it refers and adds at least one further feature. Adding features narrows the scope, so a dependent claim is always narrower than (and falls within) the claim it depends on.

Question 26Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Statement to evaluate: 'A generic disclosure in the prior art (e.g. a halogen) anticipates a later claim to a specific member of that group (e.g. chlorine).' Under EPO novelty practice, is this statement correct?

  1. Correct; a generic disclosure always anticipates each specific member
  2. Incorrect; a generic disclosure does not normally take away the novelty of a specific example, but a specific disclosure does anticipate a generic claim covering it Correct answer.
  3. Correct; only if the group has fewer than ten members
  4. Incorrect; specific examples never affect generic claims

Explanation

Under established EPO case law, a generic disclosure does not normally destroy the novelty of a specific example falling within it, whereas a specific disclosure does destroy the novelty of a generic claim that encompasses it. So 'chlorine' is not anticipated by a mere reference to 'halogen', but a claim to 'a halogen' is anticipated by a disclosure of 'chlorine'.

Question 27Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

An application as filed discloses a temperature range of 20-80 C in the description but the claim recites 50-60 C, a sub-range not originally singled out. When assessing added matter under Article 123(2) EPC, what is the key question?

  1. Whether the sub-range is novel over the prior art
  2. Whether the sub-range is clear and concise
  3. Whether the sub-range is directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed Correct answer.
  4. Whether the sub-range improves the technical effect

Explanation

For added matter under Article 123(2) EPC, the test is whether the amended subject-matter (here the 50-60 C sub-range) is directly and unambiguously derivable, using common general knowledge, from the application as filed. If the sub-range was not disclosed as such, the amendment adds matter.

Question 28Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

A claim contains the relative term 'thin layer' with no further definition. In the claims-analysis context, what Article 84 EPC objection most likely arises?

  1. Lack of novelty
  2. Lack of industrial applicability
  3. Lack of unity of invention
  4. Lack of clarity, because the relative term does not allow the skilled person to determine the boundaries of the claim Correct answer.

Explanation

Relative or vague terms such as 'thin' that lack a recognised meaning in the art typically render a claim unclear under Article 84 EPC, because the skilled person cannot determine whether a given embodiment falls within the claim's scope.

Question 29Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

A claim drafted in the 'two-part form' under Rule 43(1) EPC separates the prior-art features from the new features. Which words conventionally separate the two parts?

  1. the preamble of known features ... 'characterised in that' (or 'characterised by') ... the novel features Correct answer.
  2. 'comprising' ... 'consisting of'
  3. 'wherein' ... 'such that'
  4. 'a' ... 'the'

Explanation

Rule 43(1) EPC provides for a two-part claim form: a preamble (or prior-art portion) stating the designation of the subject-matter and the features known in combination, followed by a characterising portion introduced by 'characterised in that' or 'characterised by', stating the features for which protection is sought in combination with the known features.

Question 30Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

In a claims-analysis question, you must decide whether claim 2 (dependent on claim 1) is novel when claim 1 is not. If a prior-art document anticipates claim 1, what can you conclude about dependent claim 2?

  1. Claim 2 is automatically also not novel
  2. Claim 2 may still be novel, because it adds a further feature that the prior art might not disclose Correct answer.
  3. Claim 2 must be deleted
  4. Claim 2 is novel only if claim 1 is novel

Explanation

A dependent claim adds at least one feature to the independent claim. Even if the independent claim lacks novelty, the dependent claim may be novel if the prior art does not disclose the additional feature. Each claim must be assessed on its own combination of features.

Question 31Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Under Article 57 EPC, an invention is considered susceptible of industrial application if it can be made or used in which context?

  1. Only in the manufacturing sector
  2. Only where it generates a profit
  3. In any kind of industry, including agriculture Correct answer.
  4. Only in the field expressly stated in the claims

Explanation

Article 57 EPC provides that an invention is susceptible of industrial application if it can be made or used in any kind of industry, including agriculture. This is a low threshold met by most technical inventions.

Question 32Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

A medical use claim is drafted for a known substance for use in a method of treatment. Under Article 54(4) and 54(5) EPC, which statement is correct about first and second medical use?

  1. Known substances can never be claimed for medical use
  2. Medical use claims are excluded entirely under Article 53(c)
  3. Only methods of treatment can be patented
  4. A known substance can be claimed for a first medical use (Art 54(4)) and for a specific further (second) medical use (Art 54(5)) Correct answer.

Explanation

Although methods of treatment are excluded under Article 53(c) EPC, Articles 54(4) and 54(5) provide an exception to novelty: a known substance may be claimed for use in a first medical method (purpose-limited product claim) and for a specific further (second or subsequent) therapeutic use, even though the substance itself is known.

Question 33Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

The European search report is drawn up by the EPO and cites documents. In the search report, what does a category 'X' document indicate?

  1. A document of particular relevance: the claimed invention cannot be considered novel or cannot be considered to involve an inventive step when the document is taken alone Correct answer.
  2. A document defining the general state of the art only
  3. A document referenced in the application
  4. A document published after the filing date

Explanation

In EPO/PCT search report categories, an 'X' document is of particular relevance: the claimed invention cannot be considered novel or cannot be considered to involve an inventive step when that document is taken alone. A 'Y' document is relevant when combined with another, and an 'A' document reflects general background.

Question 34Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Under Article 82 EPC and Rule 44, a European patent application must relate to one invention or a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept. What is this requirement called?

  1. Clarity
  2. Unity of invention Correct answer.
  3. Sufficiency of disclosure
  4. Industrial applicability

Explanation

Article 82 EPC sets out the requirement of unity of invention: an application may relate to a group of inventions only if they are so linked as to form a single general inventive concept. Rule 44 explains that this means a technical relationship involving one or more identical or corresponding special technical features.

Question 35Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Under Article 83 EPC, the European patent application must disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by whom?

  1. A patent examiner
  2. An average member of the public
  3. A person skilled in the art Correct answer.
  4. The inventor only

Explanation

Article 83 EPC requires that the application disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art. This is the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure (enablement).

Question 36Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Under Article 100 EPC, opposition to a European patent may only be filed on which grounds?

  1. Any ground the opponent considers relevant
  2. Non-payment of renewal fees
  3. Only lack of novelty
  4. Lack of patentability (Art 52-57), insufficiency of disclosure (Art 83), and added subject-matter (Art 100(c)) Correct answer.

Explanation

Article 100 EPC provides an exhaustive list of opposition grounds: (a) the subject-matter is not patentable under Articles 52-57; (b) the patent does not disclose the invention sufficiently (Article 83); and (c) the subject-matter extends beyond the content of the application as filed (added matter). Lack of clarity (Article 84) is not, by itself, a ground of opposition.

Question 37Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

An opponent wishes to raise lack of clarity (Article 84 EPC) as a ground of opposition against a granted patent whose claims were not amended in opposition. Is lack of clarity available as a ground?

  1. No, Article 84 is not listed among the exhaustive opposition grounds in Article 100, and clarity of granted claims cannot be challenged in opposition unless the lack of clarity is introduced by an amendment Correct answer.
  2. Yes, clarity is a standard opposition ground
  3. Yes, but only within two months of grant
  4. No, because clarity can only be raised on appeal

Explanation

Lack of clarity (Article 84) is not one of the exhaustive opposition grounds in Article 100 EPC. Following G 3/14, the clarity of granted claims may be examined in opposition only where, and to the extent that, an amendment introduces the alleged lack of clarity.

Question 38Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Under Rule 76 EPC, the notice of opposition must contain the extent to which the patent is opposed and the grounds, as well as supporting facts and evidence. What is the consequence if the notice does not identify the opposed patent or the opponent within the nine-month period?

  1. The opposition is granted automatically
  2. The opposition is rejected as inadmissible Correct answer.
  3. The opponent is given two more years to correct it
  4. The patent is revoked

Explanation

Under Rule 76 and Rule 77 EPC, a notice of opposition that fails to comply with the minimum admissibility requirements (such as identifying the opposed patent, the opponent, and at least one substantiated ground) within the nine-month period is rejected as inadmissible.

Question 39Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

The appeal fee has been paid and notice of appeal filed in time, but no statement of grounds is filed within four months. Under Article 108 EPC, what is the consequence?

  1. The appeal proceeds without grounds
  2. The Board of Appeal drafts the grounds for the appellant
  3. The appeal is deemed not to have been filed / is rejected as inadmissible Correct answer.
  4. The appeal fee is automatically refunded and the case continues

Explanation

Under Article 108 EPC and Rule 99, if the statement setting out the grounds of appeal is not filed within four months of notification of the decision, the appeal is rejected as inadmissible (the appeal is not properly completed). The notice and fee alone are not sufficient.

Question 40Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

A PCT application is filed and the applicant wishes to enter the European regional phase before the EPO. Under Rule 159(1) EPC, by when must the acts for entry (filing fee, translation if needed, etc.) generally be completed?

  1. Thirty-one months from the date of filing or, if priority is claimed, from the earliest priority date Correct answer.
  2. Twenty months from filing
  3. Thirty months from filing in all cases
  4. Nine months from international publication

Explanation

Under Rule 159(1) EPC, the applicant must perform the acts for entry into the European regional phase within 31 months from the date of filing or, where priority is claimed, from the earliest priority date. These acts include paying the filing fee, filing a translation if required, and paying the designation fee.

Question 41Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

If the 31-month period for entering the European regional phase is missed, which remedy is in principle available under the EPC to obtain entry late?

  1. Opposition under Article 99
  2. Further processing under Article 121 EPC Correct answer.
  3. Appeal under Article 108
  4. Correction under Rule 139

Explanation

Failure to perform the acts for entry into the European regional phase in time leads to the application being deemed withdrawn, but further processing under Article 121 EPC is available as a remedy (by completing the omitted acts and paying the further processing fee within two months of the notification of loss of rights).

Question 42Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

During the PCT international phase, the International Searching Authority (ISA) prepares which two documents shortly after the search?

  1. The grant decision and the patent specification
  2. The opposition and the appeal
  3. The International Search Report (ISR) and the Written Opinion of the ISA Correct answer.
  4. The priority document and the assignment

Explanation

Under the PCT, the ISA establishes the International Search Report (ISR), citing relevant prior art, together with a Written Opinion of the ISA addressing novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. The Written Opinion later forms the basis of the IPRP under Chapter I, unless a demand for Chapter II examination is filed.

Question 43Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

An applicant wishes to obtain an International Preliminary Examination Report (IPER) under Chapter II of the PCT. By when must the demand for international preliminary examination generally be filed?

  1. Within 12 months of filing
  2. Before publication of the international application
  3. Within 31 months of the priority date
  4. By the later of 22 months from the priority date or 3 months from the date of transmittal of the ISR and Written Opinion Correct answer.

Explanation

Under Rule 54bis.1 PCT, a demand for international preliminary examination (Chapter II) must be filed by the later of 22 months from the priority date or 3 months from the date of transmittal of the ISR and the Written Opinion of the ISA.

Question 44Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Under Article 19 PCT, an applicant may file amendments to the claims of an international application with the International Bureau. Within what period are Article 19 amendments normally available?

  1. Within 16 months from the priority date or two months from transmittal of the ISR, whichever expires later Correct answer.
  2. Within two months from international publication
  3. Within 31 months of filing
  4. Only after entering the national phase

Explanation

Under Article 19 PCT and Rule 46.1, the applicant may amend the claims once before the International Bureau within 2 months from the date of transmittal of the ISR, or 16 months from the priority date, whichever time limit expires later. These amendments are limited to the claims.

Question 45Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Statement to evaluate: 'For a valid priority claim under Article 87 EPC, the later application must concern the same invention as the priority document.' According to G 2/98, what does the 'same invention' requirement mean?

  1. The applications must be word-for-word identical
  2. The subject-matter of the claim must be directly and unambiguously derivable from the priority document as a whole Correct answer.
  3. Only the title needs to match
  4. The applications must be filed in the same language

Explanation

Under G 2/98, priority for a claim is valid only if the skilled person can derive the claimed subject-matter directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge, from the priority document as a whole. This is the same 'gold standard' used for added matter.

Question 46Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

An applicant files a European application claiming priority from an earlier application that did not disclose feature F. The European claim recites feature F. What is the effect on the priority for that claim, and on the relevant date for assessing novelty of that claim?

  1. The claim keeps the priority date for all features
  2. The whole application is refused
  3. The claim loses priority for the subject-matter including feature F, so the filing date of the European application is the relevant date for assessing novelty of that claim Correct answer.
  4. Feature F is automatically deemed disclosed in the priority document

Explanation

Priority is assessed claim-by-claim and is valid only for subject-matter directly and unambiguously derivable from the priority document. Because feature F was not disclosed in the priority document, the claim reciting F does not enjoy priority and its relevant date for novelty is the actual filing date of the European application.

Question 47Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Under Article 14(2) EPC, an applicant who is a natural or legal person having residence or principal place of business in a Contracting State with an official language other than English, French or German may file in that language. What advantage does this provide under the EPC fee rules?

  1. No fees are payable at all
  2. The applicant gets an additional six months of priority
  3. The application is examined faster
  4. A reduction of certain fees (e.g. filing and examination fees) for entitled applicants such as SMEs, natural persons, non-profits and universities Correct answer.

Explanation

Under Article 14(4) EPC and the Rules relating to Fees, entitled persons (e.g. SMEs, natural persons, non-profit organisations, universities and public research organisations) who file in an admissible non-EPO language may benefit from a reduction of certain fees such as the filing and examination fees, in recognition of translation costs.

Question 48Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Under Rule 137 EPC, when may an applicant amend the description, claims and drawings of a European patent application of its own volition?

  1. Not before receipt of the European search report; thereafter once of the applicant's own volition in reply to the search opinion, with further amendments subject to consent of the Examining Division Correct answer.
  2. At any time without any restriction
  3. Only after grant
  4. Only during opposition

Explanation

Under Rule 137 EPC, no amendments may be made before the applicant has received the European search report. After that, the applicant may amend once of its own volition when responding to the search opinion (Rule 70a). Subsequent amendments require the consent of the Examining Division.

Question 49Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Under Article 60 EPC, to whom does the right to a European patent belong?

  1. Always to the first to file, regardless of inventorship
  2. To the inventor or his successor in title; if the inventor is an employee, the right is determined by the law of the State in which the employee is mainly employed Correct answer.
  3. To the EPO
  4. To the State of which the inventor is a national

Explanation

Article 60(1) EPC provides that the right to a European patent belongs to the inventor or his successor in title. For employee inventions, the right is determined in accordance with the law of the State in which the employee is mainly employed (or, failing that, where the employer's place of business is located).

Question 50Legacy EQE pre-examination: European patent-law and claim-analysis foundations

Claims-analysis scenario: claim 1 recites 'a chair comprising four legs and a seat.' Product P has a seat and three legs only. Does product P fall within the scope of claim 1 (i.e. would it literally infringe)?

  1. Yes, because a chair always has legs
  2. Yes, because 'comprising' means at least the listed features
  3. No, because claim 1 requires four legs and product P has only three, so it lacks an essential claimed feature Correct answer.
  4. It cannot be determined without the description

Explanation

For literal infringement, the product must contain every feature of the claim. Claim 1 requires four legs; product P has only three. Because a claimed feature (four legs) is absent, product P does not fall within the claim and does not literally infringe, regardless of the open term 'comprising'.