EQE common mistakes
EQE · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In Paper F claim-analysis questions, quoting a feature from the claim and asserting it is 'essential' or 'not essential' without first identifying the claim category, the single-entity requirement, and which features solve the technical problem, so the reasoning is a conclusion with no legal test attached.
Candidates memorise the 'essential features' phrase from Article 69(1) and the Protocol and then apply it as a label. Under time pressure they skip the intermediate step of establishing what the invention actually is, and examiners mark the answer as an unsupported assertion rather than an analysis.
What to do instead
Before writing anything, state the claim category (product, apparatus, process, use), the entity/entities performing each step, and the technical problem as derivable from the description. Then test each feature against that problem and say expressly whether it is essential for solving it, citing the reasoning. Practise by taking any granted claim and writing a three-line 'category / entity / problem' header before analysing features. Paper F is declarative, so also be able to name the provision (Art. 69(1) EPC, Protocol, Art. 84, Art. 123(2)) that each step of the analysis rests on.
Treating the Paper F legal questions as a memory dump: writing everything known about novelty or priority instead of answering the precise question asked, and burying the operative answer in the middle of the paragraph.
Paper F rewards declarative precision, and candidates fear that a short answer looks thin. The result is that the decisive point (for example that the priority claim fails only for claim 3 because the subject-matter is not in the priority document under the same enablement standard) is lost among correct but irrelevant statements, and no marks attach to it.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed answer architecture: (1) the rule with its legal basis, (2) the operative conclusion in one sentence, (3) the application to the facts. Put the conclusion first or immediately after the rule, never last. Rehearse by answering past-style questions in under the allotted minutes and then deleting every sentence that does not either state a rule, apply it, or reach a conclusion.
In Paper M1, answering the client's question as posed without first auditing the instructions for what is missing, contradictory, or legally impossible, and without separating the factual from the legal from the commercial issues.
Candidates read the client letter as an exam question to be answered rather than as instructions to be assessed. They miss that a deadline has already passed, that the client asks for something the EPC does not permit, or that two instructions conflict (for example file a divisional and also abandon the parent).
What to do instead
Use a written intake checklist for every M1 scenario: what is the client's stated goal; what facts are given; what facts are assumed and need confirmation; what is the nearest deadline and is it still open; what does the client want that cannot be done; what must be done now regardless. Answer in sections headed 'Instructions understood', 'Facts assumed/needed', 'Legal assessment', 'Recommended action and deadlines', and flag the impossible request explicitly with the alternative route.
Giving advice on a procedural step in Paper M1 or M2 without anchoring it to a date calculation: stating that a response is 'still possible' or that an appeal 'may be filed' without computing the actual expiry from the notification date, the Rule 126(2)/127(2) EPC deemed-delivery rules, and any extension already granted.
Candidates know the periods (four months for examination replies, two months for appeal, nine months for opposition) but do not run the arithmetic under exam conditions, and forget that the deemed date of delivery shifts the start of the period and that a period expiring on a non-working day extends under Rule 134(1) EPC.
What to do instead
For every procedural question, write the calculation as a visible chain: date on the communication, plus deemed delivery (Rule 126(2) or 127(2)), plus the period in months, adjusted for Rule 134(1) and 134(2). Never state a deadline without showing the chain, even when the answer seems obvious. Build a one-page table of the common periods and rehearse the calculation until it takes under a minute.
In Paper M2, applying EPC provisions to a PCT application without checking which phase the file is in and which Articles of the PCT and which EPC provisions govern at that point, for example treating the 31-month regional phase entry as the moment when all EPC requirements (including Rule 141 EPC priority document and translations) become due, or missing that the EPO as ISA/IPEA has already performed acts with their own consequences.
The PCT and EPC interact in a way that is easy to half-learn: candidates remember '31 months' and 'Euro-PCT' but do not track which acts belong to the international phase, which to entry, and which to the subsequent examination procedure, so they apply the wrong deadline or the wrong legal basis.
What to do instead
Draw a timeline for every PCT scenario with three columns: international phase acts (with PCT Articles), acts on entry to the regional phase (with EPC Articles and Rules), and acts after entry. Check each requirement against the correct column before answering. Practise with a single invented application and map every requirement you know onto the timeline; repeat until the placement is automatic.
In Paper M3 claim drafting, writing a claim that is formally correct but broader than the disclosure, or that mixes categories, or that omits a feature the specification shows is necessary to achieve the effect, so the claim is either unsupported under Article 84 EPC or added matter under Article 123(2) EPC.
Candidates draft to look like a patent claim rather than to be supported by the specific embodiment in front of them. Under time pressure they generalise a numerical range or a material without checking whether the description provides a basis, and they carry over an unexamined intermediate generalisation.
What to do instead
Draft the independent claim by first writing the narrowest claim fully supported by the best embodiment, then broadening one feature at a time, and after each broadening step writing down the literal and implicit basis in the description. If you cannot point to the basis in one sentence, do not broaden. Keep a separate check that every claim has one category and one inventive concept, and that dependent claims add features rather than alternatives.
In Paper M3 responses to office actions, addressing only the examiner's objections in the order raised and amending the claim to overcome each one, without checking that the amendment introduces no new matter, does not extend protection, and does not create a fresh clarity or unity problem, and without a fallback position if the amendment is refused.
Candidates treat the office action as a list to be cleared. Each amendment is made in isolation, so the cumulative effect on Article 123(2) and (3) EPC and on the scope of the other claims is never checked, and the response has no auxiliary request or reasoned fallback.
What to do instead
Before drafting, list every objection, then draft the amendment, then run a three-part audit: basis in the application as filed (Art. 123(2)), no extension of scope relative to the granted or previous claims (Art. 123(3) where relevant), and consistency across all claims and the description. Include a short section stating the fallback position and why it is available. Never amend without writing the basis quotation next to the amendment.
In Paper M4, writing a legal opinion that answers the client's commercial question with a bare yes/no and no statement of assumptions, no discussion of the strength of the position, and no identification of the risks and the options with their consequences.
Candidates see M4 as an extension of M1 and give a short practical answer, forgetting that a legal opinion must be reasoned, conditional on stated facts, and useful for a business decision. They also omit the caveat that the opinion is based on the documents supplied and unchecked facts.
What to do instead
Structure every M4 answer as: question restated; documents and facts relied on; assumptions; legal analysis with the applicable provisions and case law reasoning; conclusion with a confidence indication; risks and alternatives with consequences; recommended next steps and deadlines. Every conclusion must be traceable to a stated assumption, and any fact not supplied must be listed as needing confirmation.
Across M1 to M4, ignoring the client's deadline and the cost/benefit dimension, and recommending the legally most complete course of action (full opposition, appeal, multiple divisional filings) without regard to what the client can afford or what the commercial objective requires.
Candidates are trained on the legal correctness of the step and not on the advisory function. They also run out of time and produce a single recommendation instead of a ranked set of options, which is what the client actually needs.
What to do instead
In every advisory answer, end with a short 'Options' table: option, legal effect, cost/effort indication, risk, and recommendation. State the client's stated objective at the top and test each option against it. Where the client's budget or timing is not stated, say what you have assumed and how the recommendation would change if the assumption is wrong.
Managing time and answer format badly: writing long narrative answers to every sub-question in order, running out of time before the highest-mark sub-question, and failing to leave a clearly marked answer for each part so that a partially correct point can be credited.
Candidates answer sequentially and expansively, and do not allocate marks to minutes at the start. Because the papers are marked per point, an unmarked or buried point scores nothing even when the candidate knew it.
What to do instead
In the first two minutes, read all sub-questions, allocate minutes in proportion to marks, and note the order you will answer in (highest marks first). Use headings, numbered points and short paragraphs so each point is visibly separate. Leave a two-line skeleton answer for any part you may not reach, then return to it. Rehearse under strict timing at least twice before the exam so the allocation is calibrated.