EQE study plan

Map out the procedural timeline of a typical European patent application from filing to grant, noting the key deadlines and legal bases under the EPC and PCT.

Draft a set of claims for a simple mechanical invention, ensuring clarity, conciseness, and support by the description, and then critique them against Article 84 and Rule 43 EPC.

Analyse a provided claim set to identify added matter issues under Article 123(2) EPC, listing specific amendments that would be allowable or not.

Compare the claim drafting requirements for an opposition (Article 100 EPC) versus examination, and produce a checklist of differences.

Explain the requirements for a valid priority claim under the Paris Convention and EPC, and apply them to a fact pattern involving multiple priorities.

Draft a response to an office action raising novelty and inventive step objections, using the problem-solution approach and citing relevant case law.

Evaluate the admissibility of late-filed evidence in opposition proceedings and draft a submission arguing for or against admissibility.

Create a claim amendment that overcomes a novelty objection while avoiding added matter, and justify the basis in the application as filed.

Extract the key legal and factual issues from a client email describing a potential infringement, and formulate a list of clarifying questions to ask the client.

Apply the EPC provisions on entitlement to priority and the consequences of missing the priority deadline, using a scenario with a US provisional application.

Analyse a PCT application for compliance with Article 17 and Rule 13bis, identifying any defects in the international phase that could affect European regional phase entry.

Draft a client letter explaining the options for entering the European regional phase, including deadlines and costs, based on a PCT fact pattern.

Interpret the EPC provisions on the right to priority and the effect of a transfer of priority, and apply them to a case where the applicant changes.

Assess the patentability of a computer-implemented invention under Article 52(2) and (3) EPC, using the COMVIK approach, and draft a short legal opinion.

Formulate a legal opinion on the validity of a patent in view of a newly discovered prior art document, considering novelty and inventive step.

Draft a response to a client enquiry about the possibility of obtaining a supplementary protection certificate (SPC), outlining the conditions and deadlines.

Analyse a client's request to challenge a competitor's patent and outline the procedural steps for opposition, including time limits and grounds.

Draft a letter of advice on the risks of infringing a third-party patent, based on a freedom-to-operate analysis, and propose mitigation strategies.

Evaluate the ethical and practical considerations when a client provides instructions that may conflict with the EPC, such as requesting to omit a prior art reference.

Prepare a concise written opinion on the likelihood of success in an appeal against a decision to refuse a patent, referencing the Boards of Appeal case law.

Draft a notice of opposition based on a hypothetical patent and prior art, ensuring all grounds and evidence are properly presented.

Amend claims in opposition to overcome a novelty attack while maintaining inventive step, and write a supporting argument.

Analyse a Board of Appeal decision on added matter and extract the legal principles to apply in a future case.

Prepare a set of auxiliary requests for opposition proceedings, each addressing a different fallback position, and justify their order.

Conduct a mock client interview to gather instructions for filing a patent application, and produce a written summary of the instructions and any missing information.

Apply the EPC rules on the designation of inventors and the consequences of incorrect designation, using a scenario with multiple inventors.

Evaluate the impact of the Unitary Patent system on a client's European patent strategy, and draft a short comparative analysis of options.

Draft a response to a client who is concerned about the cost of validation in multiple EPC states, proposing a cost-effective validation strategy.

Review and consolidate knowledge of procedural deadlines under the EPC and PCT by creating a comprehensive timeline table for a typical application.

Draft a legal opinion on the enforceability of a European patent after a successful opposition appeal, considering the effect of the final decision.

Analyse a complex fact pattern involving multiple priorities and a PCT application, and produce a step-by-step legal analysis with conclusions.

Complete a timed mock exam covering all domains, and self-assess against the marking criteria to identify remaining weaknesses.