Paper F - Declarative Knowledge of Procedural Patent Law and Claim Analysis
Paper F is the declarative-knowledge paper of the EQE: computer-based multiple-choice questions on the EPC, the PCT and the Paris Convention, plus a short claim-analysis element. There is no client letter and no file to work from - each answer is taken from the legal text in force on the exam date.
Time-limit architecture
Most distractors are built by swapping these provisions:
- Art. 122 EPC (re-establishment): request within 2 months of removal of the cause and within 12 months of the expiry of the missed period; Art. 122(4) excludes the opposition period.
- Art. 121 + R. 135 EPC (further processing): 2 months from notification of loss of rights under R. 112(1), with the fee.
- R. 131(2) EPC: a period expressed in months ends on the corresponding day of the relevant month; if that day does not exist, on the last day of the month.
- R. 134(1) EPC: expiry on a day on which the EPO is not open for receipt of documents extends to the next open day.
- R. 127(2) EPC: a document delivered via the EPO Mailbox is deemed notified on the tenth day following its dispatch.
Claim analysis
Split the claim into technical features, mark which features the cited disclosure actually shows, and name the remaining distinguishing features precisely. For functional and result-to-be-achieved features, ask whether the description provides support under Art. 84 EPC and whether the whole claimed scope is enabled under Art. 83 EPC.
Worked example
A communication dated Monday 3 June 2024 sets a two-month period and is delivered to the EPO Mailbox. Reasoning: R. 127(2) adds ten days, so deemed notification falls on 13 June 2024; two months under R. 131(2) ends on 13 August 2024; that day is a Tuesday, so R. 134(1) does not shift the deadline. Answer: 13 August 2024.
Traps that cost marks
- Computing from the date printed on the communication rather than from the deemed notification date.
- Using re-establishment for a missed opposition period, which Art. 122(4) EPC excludes.
- Applying R. 134(1) to a national court or a receiving Office; it concerns the EPO only.
- Reading a claim feature into the prior art because the wording is similar although the technical function differs, or ignoring that a product-by-process feature limits a product claim only in so far as the process imparts a distinguishing property.