I85PREP
⌘ K
EQE study materials
EQE study resources

EQE practice questions

One question at a time. Build your EQE understanding.

First 50 of 200 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 1Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

Under the EPC, within what period must a European patent application be filed to claim priority from an earlier first filing, and what is the maximum period for filing the subsequent European application?

  1. The priority claim must be made within 6 months of the first filing; the European application must be filed within 12 months.
  2. The priority claim must be made within 12 months of the first filing; the European application must be filed within that same 12-month period. Correct answer.
  3. The priority claim must be made within 16 months of the first filing; the European application must be filed within 18 months.
  4. The priority claim must be made within 12 months of the first filing; the European application may be filed within 16 months.

Explanation

Article 87(1) EPC sets a 12-month period from the date of the first filing for claiming priority. The European application claiming that priority must itself be filed within the same 12-month window; the 16-month figure relates to furnishing the priority document, not to filing the application.

Question 2Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

A European patent application is filed on 3 March 2022. By what date must the request for early processing and the examination fee normally be filed, and what is the consequence of missing the examination fee deadline?

  1. Within 6 months of the date of publication of the search report; the application is deemed withdrawn if the fee is not paid. Correct answer.
  2. Within 12 months of the filing date; examination is simply postponed until the fee is paid.
  3. Within 6 months of the filing date; the application is deemed withdrawn if the fee is not paid.
  4. Within 31 months of the priority date; the application is refused if the fee is not paid.

Explanation

Under Article 94(2) EPC and Rule 70, the examination fee must be paid within six months of publication of the European search report. Failure to pay in time results in the application being deemed withdrawn, not merely postponed.

Question 3Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

During examination, an applicant wishes to amend the claims. Which standard governs whether an amendment is allowable under Article 123(2) EPC?

  1. The amendment must not add subject-matter extending beyond the content of the application as filed. Correct answer.
  2. The amendment must not extend the protection conferred by the patent.
  3. The amendment must be approved by the Examining Division before filing.
  4. The amendment must be supported by the claims as originally filed only.

Explanation

Article 123(2) EPC prohibits amendments that add subject-matter extending beyond the content of the application as filed. The 'no extension of protection' rule in Article 123(3) applies to granted patents, and support under Article 84 is a separate requirement.

Question 4Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

In examining novelty under Article 54 EPC, which statement correctly describes the prior art base?

  1. Only documents cited in the search report count as prior art.
  2. Only published patent applications from EPO member states count as prior art.
  3. Prior art is limited to documents published more than 18 months before the filing date.
  4. Everything made available to the public by means of a written or oral description, by use, or in any other way before the filing date counts. Correct answer.

Explanation

Article 54(2) EPC defines the state of the art as everything made available to the public before the filing date, whether by written or oral description, by use, or in any other way. It is not limited to patent documents or to cited references.

Question 5Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

An applicant files a European patent application with a description, claims and drawings on 10 June 2021. The application claims priority from a US filing of 12 June 2020. When does the 18-month publication deadline expire?

  1. 12 December 2022, calculated from the filing date plus 18 months.
  2. 10 December 2022, calculated from the filing date.
  3. 10 June 2022, calculated from the filing date.
  4. 12 December 2021, calculated from the priority date. Correct answer.

Explanation

Under Article 93 EPC, publication occurs as soon as possible after 18 months from the priority date. Counting 18 months from 12 June 2020 gives 12 December 2021.

Question 6Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

Which body hears appeals from decisions of the Examining Division under the EPC?

  1. The Enlarged Board of Appeal sitting in its judicial capacity.
  2. The Boards of Appeal. Correct answer.
  3. The President of the European Patent Office.
  4. The Administrative Council.

Explanation

Appeals against Examining Division decisions go to the Boards of Appeal under Article 106 EPC. The Enlarged Board handles referrals and fundamental legal questions, while the Administrative Council and President perform supervisory or administrative functions.

Question 7Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

A third party wishes to challenge a granted European patent centrally after the nine-month opposition period has expired. Which route is available at the EPO?

  1. A request for limitation or revocation filed by the patent proprietor under Article 105a EPC. Correct answer.
  2. A request for re-examination by the Examining Division.
  3. A central attack filed by any third party at any time.
  4. An appeal to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

Explanation

After the nine-month opposition period, central revocation at the EPO can only be initiated by the proprietor through limitation or revocation proceedings under Article 105a EPC. Third parties must then rely on national revocation proceedings.

Question 8Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

In assessing inventive step under the problem-and-solution approach, what is the first step?

  1. Determining the closest prior art. Correct answer.
  2. Identifying the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art.
  3. Checking whether the solution would have been obvious to the skilled person.
  4. Formulating the objective technical problem.

Explanation

The problem-and-solution approach begins by determining the closest prior art, then identifying the distinguishing features, formulating the objective technical problem, and finally assessing obviousness.

Question 9Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

Which claim category is encompassed by Article 52(2) EPC as excluded subject-matter?

  1. A claim to a method for doing business as such. Correct answer.
  2. A claim to a device comprising a processor and a memory.
  3. A claim to a technical process for manufacturing a chemical.
  4. A claim to a new pharmaceutical compound.

Explanation

Article 52(2)(c) EPC excludes schemes, rules and methods for doing business as such. Chemical processes, compounds and devices are technical subject-matter that is not excluded.

Question 10Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

An applicant wishes to add a feature to claim 1 that is disclosed only in a figure of the application as filed. What must be established for the amendment to comply with Article 123(2) EPC?

  1. That the feature is supported by the abstract.
  2. That the feature is explicitly mentioned in the description.
  3. That the feature is directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed, including the drawings. Correct answer.
  4. That the feature was mentioned in the priority document.

Explanation

The gold standard for Article 123(2) EPC is whether the amended subject-matter is directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed, which includes the drawings. Explicit mention in the description is not required if the feature is clearly disclosed in a figure.

Question 11Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

Under the EPC, what is the effect of a valid priority claim on the assessment of novelty against a document published between the priority date and the filing date?

  1. The intervening document is not prior art if the priority is valid for the claimed subject-matter. Correct answer.
  2. The intervening document is prior art only if it is a European patent application.
  3. The intervening document is prior art only for claims not entitled to priority.
  4. The intervening document is prior art because it was published before the filing date.

Explanation

A valid priority claim means the relevant date for novelty of that subject-matter is the priority date. A document published after the priority date but before the filing date therefore does not form part of the state of the art for that subject-matter.

Question 12Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

A European patent is granted with claim 1 reciting feature A. During opposition, the proprietor amends claim 1 to recite feature A plus feature B. Which requirement under Article 123(3) EPC applies?

  1. The amendment must be limited to features present in the dependent claims.
  2. The amendment must not add subject-matter beyond the application as filed.
  3. The amendment must not extend the protection conferred by the granted patent. Correct answer.
  4. The amendment must be approved by all opponents.

Explanation

Article 123(3) EPC prohibits amendments during opposition that extend the protection conferred by the granted patent. The added-matter requirement of Article 123(2) also applies, but the specific question concerns the scope of protection.

Question 13Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

Which statement correctly describes the requirement for unity of invention under Article 82 EPC?

  1. Unity is assessed only after grant, during opposition.
  2. The application must relate to a single invention only, and any second invention must be deleted.
  3. The application must relate to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept. Correct answer.
  4. Unity requires that all claims share identical technical features.

Explanation

Article 82 EPC requires that a European patent application relate to one invention or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept. Shared identical features are not required; a common special technical feature linking the inventions suffices.

Question 14Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

An applicant receives a communication under Rule 71(3) EPC indicating the text intended for grant. What is the consequence of approving the text and paying the required fees?

  1. The patent is immediately enforceable in all member states on the date of the communication.
  2. The application is published again in amended form before grant.
  3. The application proceeds to grant, and the decision to grant takes effect on the date of the mention of grant in the European Patent Bulletin. Correct answer.
  4. The applicant must still file a separate request for grant in each member state.

Explanation

Approval of the Rule 71(3) communication and payment of fees lead to a decision to grant, which takes effect on the date the grant is mentioned in the European Patent Bulletin. National validation is a separate post-grant step.

Question 15Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

During oral proceedings before the Examining Division, the applicant submits an amended claim set for the first time. How should the Division generally treat this late submission?

  1. It must adjourn the proceedings to allow the opponent to comment.
  2. It must admit the amendments because the applicant has an absolute right to amend at any time.
  3. It must refer the case to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.
  4. It may consider whether the amendments are prima facie allowable and relevant, and may refuse to admit them if they raise new issues. Correct answer.

Explanation

Under the EPC, late-filed amendments at oral proceedings may be refused if they are not clearly allowable or raise new issues that cannot be dealt with without adjournment. There is no absolute right to introduce amendments at any stage.

Question 16Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

A patent proprietor wishes to correct a clerical error in the description after grant. Which procedure under the EPC applies?

  1. An opposition filed by the proprietor against its own patent.
  2. A request for correction of errors under Rule 139 EPC, subject to the limitation that the correction must be obvious. Correct answer.
  3. A fresh examination by the Examining Division.
  4. A request for re-publication of the application.

Explanation

Rule 139 EPC allows correction of linguistic errors, transcription errors and obvious mistakes in documents filed with the EPO, provided the correction is obvious in the sense that nothing else could have been intended.

Question 17Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

Which of the following is a requirement for a valid priority claim under Article 87 EPC?

  1. The earlier application must be in an official language of the EPO.
  2. The earlier application must have been published before the later filing.
  3. The earlier application must be a European patent application.
  4. The earlier application must have been filed by the same applicant or its successor in title. Correct answer.

Explanation

Article 87(1) EPC requires that the person claiming priority be the applicant of the earlier application or its successor in title. The earlier application may be a national, regional or international application, and it need not be published or in an EPO language.

Question 18Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

In claim interpretation for the purposes of Article 69 EPC, which protocol governs the extent of protection?

  1. The Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 EPC. Correct answer.
  2. The Strasbourg Convention.
  3. The PCT Regulations.
  4. The Paris Convention.

Explanation

Article 69 EPC and its Protocol define the extent of protection, requiring a balance between fair protection for the patentee and reasonable certainty for third parties. The other treaties address different matters.

Question 19Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

A dependent claim recites 'the device of claim 1, wherein the processor is a microprocessor.' Claim 1 recites a device comprising a processor. What is the scope of the dependent claim?

  1. It covers only microprocessors, independently of claim 1.
  2. It covers devices with a processor that is a microprocessor, incorporating all features of claim 1. Correct answer.
  3. It covers devices that lack a processor but include a microprocessor.
  4. It covers all devices with a processor, because it incorporates claim 1.

Explanation

A dependent claim incorporates all features of the claim from which it depends and adds a further limitation. Its scope is therefore narrower than claim 1 and covers devices with a processor that is a microprocessor.

Question 20Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

Which statement about the burden of proof in opposition proceedings is correct?

  1. The opponent bears the burden of proving that the grounds for opposition are met. Correct answer.
  2. The Examining Division bears the burden of proving invalidity.
  3. The proprietor bears the burden of proving patentability.
  4. The burden shifts to the proprietor once the opposition is filed.

Explanation

In opposition proceedings, the opponent must substantiate and prove the grounds for opposition. The proprietor is not required to prove patentability; the patent is presumed valid until revoked.

Question 21Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

An applicant files a European patent application containing a claim to a method of treatment of the human body by surgery. How should the Examining Division treat this claim?

  1. The claim is allowable because it is novel and inventive.
  2. The claim is excluded from patentability under Article 53(c) EPC. Correct answer.
  3. The claim is allowable if the method is performed by a medical professional.
  4. The claim is allowable only if the method has a cosmetic purpose.

Explanation

Article 53(c) EPC excludes methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the body from patentability. The identity of the performer does not change this exclusion.

Question 22Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

Which document must be filed to claim priority from an earlier application, and by when must it normally be filed?

  1. A translation of the earlier application, within 18 months of the priority date.
  2. A declaration of priority only, within 16 months of the priority date.
  3. A certified copy of the earlier application, within 16 months of the priority date. Correct answer.
  4. The original earlier application, within 12 months of the priority date.

Explanation

Under Rule 53 EPC, the priority document, generally a certified copy of the earlier application, must be filed within 16 months of the priority date, unless it is available to the EPO through other means.

Question 23Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

A granted European patent contains claim 1 directed to a compound and claim 2 directed to a composition comprising the compound. An opponent argues claim 2 lacks novelty over a document disclosing the compound in a composition. Which analysis is correct?

  1. Claim 2 is invalid for lack of unity with claim 1.
  2. Claim 2 is novel because it is a different claim category from claim 1.
  3. Claim 2 lacks novelty if the document discloses all features of claim 2, including the composition features. Correct answer.
  4. Claim 2 is automatically novel because it depends on claim 1.

Explanation

Novelty is assessed against the features recited in each claim. A composition claim lacks novelty if a single prior art document discloses all its features, irrespective of claim category.

Question 24Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

Which of the following best describes the 'problem-and-solution approach' as applied by the EPO?

  1. A method for determining whether the application meets the formal requirements of the EPC.
  2. A method for interpreting the claims under Article 69 EPC.
  3. A method for calculating the appropriate renewal fees.
  4. A method for assessing whether the claimed invention solves a technical problem in a non-obvious way, starting from the closest prior art. Correct answer.

Explanation

The problem-and-solution approach is the EPO's structured method for assessing inventive step. It identifies the closest prior art, determines the distinguishing features, formulates the objective technical problem, and evaluates obviousness.

Question 25Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

An applicant wishes to amend the claims during the period before the Examining Division issues its first communication. Which statement is correct about the applicant's right to amend?

  1. The applicant may amend the claims at any time before grant, subject to the requirements of the EPC. Correct answer.
  2. The applicant may not amend the claims once the application is published.
  3. The applicant may amend the claims only with the consent of the Examining Division.
  4. The applicant may amend the claims only after the first communication.

Explanation

Under the EPC, the applicant may amend the application at any time during the proceedings, provided the amendments comply with the EPC, including Articles 123(2) and 84. There is no requirement to wait for the first communication.

Question 26Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

Under the EPC, which organ of the European Patent Office is competent to decide on the allowability of an appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division?

  1. The Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation
  2. The Enlarged Board of Appeal sitting in its judicial capacity
  3. The Examining Division that examined the application
  4. A Technical Board of Appeal of the Boards of Appeal Correct answer.

Explanation

Appeals from decisions of the Opposition Division are decided by the Boards of Appeal, which are organised in technical and legal boards depending on the subject-matter. The Enlarged Board only handles referrals on points of law and petitions for review. The Examining Division and the Administrative Council have no appellate jurisdiction over opposition decisions.

Question 27Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

A European patent is maintained in amended form after opposition. The opponent considers that the amended claim 1 still lacks an inventive step. Which course of action is available to that opponent under the EPC?

  1. File a notice of appeal against the interlocutory decision within two months of its notification Correct answer.
  2. File a new opposition against the amended claims within nine months
  3. Request re-examination of the amended claims by the Examining Division
  4. Request the Enlarged Board of Appeal to review the decision directly

Explanation

Where the Opposition Division maintains the patent in amended form, the decision is an appealable interlocutory decision, and any party adversely affected, including the opponent, may appeal within two months of notification. There is no re-examination route before the Examining Division after grant, and a fresh opposition cannot be filed against an amended patent. The Enlarged Board does not review decisions of first-instance departments directly.

Question 28Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

In the problem-and-solution approach, after the closest prior art has been identified, which step follows immediately?

  1. Formulating the objective technical problem on the basis of the distinguishing features and their technical effect Correct answer.
  2. Checking whether the priority document discloses the claimed subject-matter
  3. Determining whether the claimed invention is susceptible of industrial application
  4. Deciding whether the claims comply with the requirement of unity of invention

Explanation

The established sequence is: identify the closest prior art, determine the distinguishing features and the technical effect they produce, and then formulate the objective technical problem accordingly before assessing obviousness. Industrial application, priority entitlement and unity are separate requirements examined independently of this sequence.

Question 29Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

A claim recites a device comprising a housing and a sensor, and a dependent claim recites 'the device of claim 1, wherein the housing is made of aluminium.' Which statement about the scope of the dependent claim is correct?

  1. It has the same scope as claim 1 because the added feature is merely optional
  2. It covers all devices comprising a housing and a sensor, regardless of housing material
  3. It covers aluminium housings generally, whether or not a sensor is present
  4. It covers only devices in which the housing is made of aluminium and which also comprise a sensor Correct answer.

Explanation

A dependent claim incorporates by reference all the features of the claim on which it depends and adds a further limitation. Its scope is therefore narrower than that of claim 1 and covers only embodiments having both the sensor and the aluminium housing. The added feature is mandatory in the dependent claim, not optional.

Question 30Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

An applicant files a European patent application on 1 March 2024 claiming priority from a national application filed on 1 March 2023. The priority application does not disclose feature X, which appears in claim 1 as filed. What is the consequence for the feature X?

  1. Feature X enjoys priority only if it is moved to a dependent claim
  2. Feature X enjoys priority if the applicant files a declaration confirming that it was intended to be included
  3. Feature X does not enjoy priority, so its effective date is the filing date of the European application Correct answer.
  4. Feature X automatically enjoys priority because the priority claim covers the whole application

Explanation

Priority is assessed feature by feature. A feature not disclosed in the priority document cannot benefit from the priority date and instead takes the actual filing date of the European application. Moving the feature to a dependent claim or filing a declaration does not change the disclosure content of the priority document.

Question 31Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

During examination, the Examining Division raises a clarity objection under Article 84 EPC against a term in claim 1. Which statement about the scope of the clarity examination is correct?

  1. Clarity objections may be raised against the claims as a whole, including terms whose meaning is ambiguous in the art Correct answer.
  2. Clarity is examined only for claims directed to chemical compounds
  3. Clarity is examined only at the request of a third party
  4. Clarity objections can be raised only after grant, in opposition proceedings

Explanation

Article 84 EPC requires the claims to be clear and concise and supported by the description, and this is examined for all claims during examination. Ambiguous terms whose meaning is not established in the art are a typical basis for an objection. Clarity is not limited to particular technical fields, nor is it dependent on third-party requests, and it is a central examination requirement before grant.

Question 32Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

An applicant wishes to add a feature to claim 1 that is disclosed only in the drawings of the application as filed, without any accompanying description. Which statement reflects the EPO approach to added subject-matter?

  1. The feature may be added if the applicant states that it was intended to be part of the disclosure
  2. The feature may be added only if it is explicitly mentioned in the abstract
  3. Drawings are never a basis for amendment, so the feature cannot be added
  4. The feature may be added if its structure and function are clearly and unambiguously derivable from the drawing by a skilled person Correct answer.

Explanation

Under Article 123(2) EPC, amendments must not extend beyond the content of the application as filed, and drawings form part of that disclosure. A feature shown in a drawing can be added if its technical teaching is clearly and unambiguously derivable, without the applicant supplying new information. An applicant's statement of intent cannot cure a lack of literal basis.

Question 33Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

Which statement about the examination of unity of invention under Article 82 EPC is correct?

  1. Unity is assessed only after grant, during opposition
  2. Unity requires a single general inventive concept linking the claims, assessed before novelty and inventive step Correct answer.
  3. Unity is assessed only where the applicant requests it
  4. Unity requires all claims to belong to the same claim category

Explanation

Article 82 EPC requires the claims to relate to a single invention or to a group of inventions forming a single general inventive concept. The EPO assesses this a posteriori, typically on the basis of the special technical features shared by the claims, before examining novelty and inventive step. Unity does not require the same claim category, and it is examined of the EPO's own motion.

Question 34Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

An applicant receives a communication under Rule 71(3) EPC indicating the text intended for grant. Which statement about the applicant's response is correct?

  1. The applicant must request oral proceedings to obtain grant
  2. The applicant may ignore the communication; grant will proceed automatically
  3. The applicant may file amendments at any time before the mention of grant is published, without any fee
  4. The applicant must file a response within four months, and the application is deemed withdrawn if the response is not filed Correct answer.

Explanation

Under Rule 71(3) EPC, the applicant is informed of the text intended for grant and must respond within the prescribed period, normally four months, by approving the text or requesting amendments. If no response is filed in time, the application is deemed withdrawn. Amendments at this stage are subject to the applicable fee and to the requirement that they do not delay grant.

Question 35Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

A third party wishes to challenge the validity of a granted European patent in a Contracting State after the opposition period has expired and no opposition was filed. Which route is available under the EPC?

  1. File a national revocation action before the competent national court Correct answer.
  2. File a new opposition with a request for restitutio in integrum
  3. Request the Enlarged Board of Appeal to revoke the patent
  4. File a central limitation request with the EPO

Explanation

Once the opposition period has expired without opposition, central challenge at the EPO is no longer possible, but the patent remains subject to national revocation proceedings in each Contracting State. Limitation is a procedure available to the proprietor, not to third parties. Restitutio in integrum cannot extend the expired opposition period for a third party, and the Enlarged Board does not revoke patents.

Question 36Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

Which statement correctly describes the requirement of sufficiency of disclosure under Article 83 EPC?

  1. Sufficiency requires the applicant to disclose the best method known, even if not reproducible
  2. The invention must be disclosed in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be understood by a lay person
  3. The invention must be disclosed in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art Correct answer.
  4. Sufficiency is assessed only for claims relating to mechanical devices

Explanation

Article 83 EPC requires the application to disclose the invention sufficiently clearly and completely for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art, without undue burden. The standard is reproducibility by the skilled person, not comprehension by a lay person, and it applies to all technical fields. There is no separate obligation to disclose a 'best method' as such under the EPC.

Question 37Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

A claim recites 'a fastener means for securing the panel to the frame.' The description discloses a screw and a rivet as suitable fasteners. How is this claim to be interpreted under the EPC?

  1. The claim covers any means capable of performing the recited function of securing the panel to the frame Correct answer.
  2. The claim is interpreted literally as covering only the word 'means'
  3. The claim is limited to a screw, because it is disclosed first in the description
  4. The claim is unclear because functional language is never permitted

Explanation

Functional wording in a claim is interpreted in the light of the description and the technical function recited. Where the claim defines a means by its function, it covers embodiments capable of performing that function, subject to the disclosure providing adequate support. Functional language is not per se unclear, and the order of examples in the description does not limit the claim to the first one.

Question 38Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

A granted European patent contains claim 1 directed to a compound and claim 2 directed to a composition comprising that compound. During opposition, the proprietor deletes claim 1 and retains claim 2. Which statement about the amendment is correct?

  1. The amendment is allowable only if claim 2 is reformulated as an independent claim and the description is adapted accordingly Correct answer.
  2. The amendment is not allowable because claim 2 depended on claim 1
  3. The amendment is automatically refused because claim 1 was the broadest claim
  4. The amendment is allowable only if the opponent consents

Explanation

Deleting a claim is a permissible limitation, but the remaining claims and the description must be brought into conformity with the amended claim set. If claim 2 referred back to claim 1, it must be reformulated as an independent claim with the necessary features. The opponent's consent is not required, and the deletion of the broadest claim is not a ground for refusal.

Question 39Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

An applicant files a European patent application containing a claim to a method of treatment of the human body by surgery. Which statement about the examination of that claim is correct?

  1. The claim is excluded only if it is performed in a hospital
  2. The claim is allowable if the method is carried out by a medical professional
  3. The claim is examined for novelty and inventive step like any other claim
  4. The claim is excluded from patentability under Article 53(c) EPC and is not examined for novelty Correct answer.

Explanation

Article 53(c) EPC excludes methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the body from patentability. Such claims are not examined for novelty and inventive step because they fall outside the definition of patentable inventions. The exclusion does not depend on who performs the method or where it is carried out.

Question 40Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

An applicant wishes to amend the claims during the period before the Examining Division issues its first communication. Which statement about this amendment is correct?

  1. Amendments are permitted only if they reduce the number of claims
  2. Amendments may be made at any time before the first communication, subject to the requirements of Article 123 EPC Correct answer.
  3. Amendments are not permitted until after the first communication
  4. Amendments require the prior consent of the Examining Division

Explanation

Before the first communication, the applicant may amend the application of its own volition, provided the amendments comply with Article 123 EPC and do not introduce added subject-matter. Consent of the Examining Division becomes relevant only after the first communication. There is no requirement that amendments reduce the number of claims at this stage.

Question 41Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

A client instructs you to draft a patent claim set covering a mechanical fastener, but supplies only a marketing brochure and a photograph of the assembled product. Under the EQE Paper M1 approach to client instructions, what is the most appropriate first step?

  1. Draft a full specification yourself by reverse-engineering the photograph and infer missing features
  2. Draft the claims from the brochure and photograph and note the missing technical detail in a covering letter
  3. Refuse the instruction outright because the disclosure is insufficient to file anything
  4. Request the missing technical disclosure from the client before drafting, explaining what is needed and why Correct answer.

Explanation

Paper M1 rewards recognising when instructions are incomplete and responding professionally: identify the gap, explain its significance, and ask the client for the specific information required. Drafting on inadequate disclosure risks added matter and unsupported claims, which is a substantive defect, not a mere formality. Outright refusal is disproportionate where a clarifying request can resolve the problem.

Question 42Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

In Paper M1, when a client's letter contains both a clear instruction to file a European patent application and a separate request for advice on whether to file, how should the candidate treat these?

  1. Treat the advice request as the primary task and treat filing as conditional on that advice
  2. Ignore the advisory request because M1 concerns only executing instructions
  3. Treat both as instructions to be answered, separating the actionable instruction from the advisory request Correct answer.
  4. Treat the filing instruction as overriding and answer only that, since advice is outside the paper

Explanation

M1 requires the candidate to identify all elements of the client's communication and respond to each appropriately, distinguishing an executable instruction from a request for professional advice. Both must be addressed, with the advice informing the decision to proceed. Treating one as cancelling the other misreads the instruction.

Question 43Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

A client asks you to assess whether a competitor's published application is novelty-destroying for their own pending claim. Which is the correct analytical starting point under M1?

  1. Rely on the competitor's search report conclusions about novelty
  2. Compare the competitor's abstract with the client's claim as a whole
  3. Compare each feature of the client's claim with the explicit and implicit disclosure of the competitor's application Correct answer.
  4. Check only whether the competitor's filing date precedes the client's priority date

Explanation

Novelty assessment requires a feature-by-feature comparison of the claim against the whole disclosure of the prior document, including matter directly and unambiguously derivable from it. Dates establish whether the document is prior art at all, but do not answer the novelty question. A search report expresses an examiner's provisional view, not a substitute for your own analysis.

Question 44Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

During a client meeting the client states orally that a feature in the draft application was actually known from a trade fair demonstration six months before the priority date. What is the correct professional response in M1 terms?

  1. Record the information, assess its impact on novelty and inventiveness, and advise the client on the consequences Correct answer.
  2. Immediately delete the feature from the claims without further analysis
  3. Assume the trade fair disclosure is automatically non-prejudicial under the exhibition exception
  4. Disregard it because oral information from the client cannot be prior art

Explanation

Information supplied by the client must be captured and evaluated, because a public demonstration before the priority date is potentially prior art affecting novelty and inventive step. The candidate should assess the effect and advise on options, not act mechanically. Assumptions about exceptions must be verified against their strict conditions.

Question 45Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

A client sends a draft claim reading: 'A device comprising a handle and a blade, wherein the blade is sharp.' Which criticism is most relevant when evaluating this claim for the client?

  1. The claim lacks clarity because 'sharp' is a relative, subjective term without a defined technical meaning Correct answer.
  2. The claim is directed to a non-technical subject matter
  3. The claim contains a reference to the drawings
  4. The claim is too long and should be shortened

Explanation

Relative and subjective terms such as 'sharp' leave the scope of the claim indeterminate, which is a clarity defect under the EPC. Evaluating claim wording for definiteness is a core M1 task when reviewing client drafts. The other criticisms do not correspond to any defect actually present in the wording.

Question 46Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

A client instructs you to 'make sure nobody can copy our product'. Which translation of this instruction into patent work is most appropriate for M1?

  1. Advise on a broad claim strategy plus other IP rights, and explain that patents confer a right to exclude but do not guarantee freedom to operate Correct answer.
  2. Recommend only registered design protection because copying is a design issue
  3. Decline the instruction as too vague to act upon
  4. Promise that a granted patent will prevent all copying of the product

Explanation

M1 tests converting a commercial wish into a legally coherent work programme: broad but supported claims, consideration of other rights, and accurate advice that a patent is a right to exclude rather than a guarantee against infringement. Managing the client's expectations is part of acting on instructions responsibly.

Question 47Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

You receive a client letter dated 3 March instructing immediate filing of a European application, but the letter also states that a final decision on the technical content will follow. What is the principal risk you should flag to the client?

  1. The letter's date is irrelevant because filing deadlines are always set by the EPO
  2. Filing before content is finalised may lock in an inadequate disclosure and a priority date that cannot later be supplemented Correct answer.
  3. The client must wait at least twelve months before any filing can be made
  4. Filing early always improves the scope of protection obtained

Explanation

A priority filing fixes the disclosure, and later-added technical content cannot enjoy the original date, so filing prematurely on incomplete content creates added-matter and priority risks. The professional response is to explain this trade-off so the client can decide with full information. Deadlines and scope are not improved automatically by early filing.

Question 48Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

A client asks whether a document published on an internet forum two years before the priority date can be used against their application. What is the correct M1 assessment?

  1. Internet disclosures can be prior art if their publication date and content are reliably established Correct answer.
  2. Internet disclosures are prior art only if the client admits seeing them
  3. Internet disclosures count only if they are indexed by a recognised search engine
  4. Internet disclosures are never prior art because they are not printed publications

Explanation

The EPC does not restrict prior art to printed publications; any disclosure made available to the public can qualify, including online postings, provided the date and content can be reliably proven. The evidential question of proof is central to advising the client. None of the restrictive rules suggested in the other options exists.

Question 49Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

In evaluating a client's instruction to 'oppose the competitor's patent', which information is most essential to obtain before advising on prospects?

  1. The number of claims in the granted patent
  2. The full text of the granted claim, the prosecution file, and the available prior art with dates Correct answer.
  3. The name of the competitor's representative
  4. The competitor's marketing budget and sales figures

Explanation

Assessing an opposition requires the granted claim as the target, the prosecution history to understand amendments and estoppel-type arguments, and prior art with verifiable dates to support novelty or inventive-step attacks. Commercial data and peripheral details do not establish a legal ground of opposition.

Question 50Paper F - declarative knowledge in procedural patent law and claim analysis

A client's instruction letter contains a factual assertion about the prior art that conflicts with the documents the client has supplied. How should the candidate proceed in M1?

  1. Choose whichever version is more favourable to the client's case
  2. Rely on the supplied documents and disregard the letter entirely
  3. Identify the discrepancy, verify against the documents, and raise the point with the client before relying on either version Correct answer.
  4. Accept the client's assertion because the client is responsible for the facts

Explanation

Where client statements conflict with documentary evidence, the candidate must notice the inconsistency and resolve it with the client rather than silently preferring one source. Acting on unverified facts risks a flawed assessment. Selecting the favourable version would be improper advocacy rather than professional analysis.