EQE Paper F common mistakes
EQE Paper F · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Preparing and filing the answer as if it were a substantive patent-law opinion, devoting the bulk of the time to legal analysis and leaving the formal response (the notice of opposition, the appeal grounds, the request) thin or incomplete.
Candidates transfer habits from Papers A, B, C and D, where the reward is legal reasoning. Paper F is a client-and-authority-facing drafting paper: the deliverable is a formally correct, procedurally complete document that an EPO body can act on immediately. Marks are allocated to structure, correct addressees, correct legal bases and complete requests, not only to the quality of the argument.
What to do instead
Before writing, list the mandatory components of the specific document type (e.g. for an opposition: opponent details, patent number, grounds under Art. 100 with supporting facts, requests, fee, signature, authorisation if applicable). Draft the skeleton with all headings first, then fill in argument. Reserve a final pass that reads only the skeleton to confirm every formal element is present.
Treating the time budget as uniform across the paper, so that the first task absorbs 60-70% of the available time and later tasks are answered in note form or abandoned.
Paper F tasks vary greatly in weight, and the first task often feels most tractable. Candidates also underestimate how long careful reading of a long client letter takes. The result is a strong first answer and a weak overall score, since each task is marked independently.
What to do instead
Before starting, read all tasks and allocate minutes in proportion to marks, writing the allocation on the answer sheet. Impose hard cut-offs (e.g. leave a task after its allotted time even if unfinished). Practise under timed conditions with a clock visible, and rehearse leaving a task deliberately to build the habit.
Answering the question that the client asked in the letter rather than the question the examiner set, e.g. drafting a full new application when the task asked only for a claim set and a filing strategy note, or omitting a required covering letter to the client.
The client letter is realistic and detailed, and it invites open-ended advice. Candidates follow the narrative and produce a general consultation rather than the specified deliverable. Task instructions in Paper F are precise about which documents to produce and to whom.
What to do instead
Underline the operative instruction verbs in each task (draft, amend, advise, prepare, request) and the named addressee. Write a one-line deliverable statement at the top of each answer ('Deliverable: notice of opposition to the EPO, on behalf of X'). Check the finished answer against that statement before moving on.
Drafting amendments or claims that add matter, because the amendment is described in the client's words or in general terms rather than anchored word-for-word in the application as filed, with no basis pointed to.
Under time pressure candidates paraphrase the disclosure and generalise from a single embodiment. Art. 123(2) is strict: a combination of features needs support for the combination, not merely for each feature separately. Candidates also forget to check Art. 123(3) for oppositions and Art. 19/Art. 123(2) for PCT and appeal contexts.
What to do instead
For every amendment, quote the exact passage of the application as filed that provides the basis, and state whether it is an individualised disclosure or a combination. Where no literal basis exists, either reformulate within the disclosed wording or flag the added-matter risk explicitly in the accompanying advice. Build a checklist covering Art. 123(2), Art. 123(3) and clarity.
Ignoring or miscomputing the deadlines and time limits that drive the whole answer: opposition period, appeal period, response periods, further-processing and re-establishment windows, and the translation and fee deadlines in PCT national/regional phase.
Deadlines are scattered through the scenario and depend on notification dates and the means of notification (e.g. the deemed-receipt rules). Candidates compute from the wrong starting date or forget that some periods are non-extendable. Errors here invalidate the entire strategy proposed.
What to do instead
Extract every date in the scenario into a timeline table with the triggering event, the applicable rule, the computed expiry and whether it is extendable. Recompute each date twice and state the computation in the answer so the marker can follow it. Memorise the core periods and the deemed-notification rules as a fixed drill.
Making unsupported or over-broad requests (e.g. requesting oral proceedings, an extension, or revocation in full) without stating the legal basis, the procedural consequence, or a fallback position, and without a conditional or auxiliary request where one is needed.
Candidates know that such requests exist but not why or when to deploy them, so they scatter them defensively. A request without a legal basis or without a fallback (e.g. auxiliary request in opposition, auxiliary requests on appeal) leaves the client exposed if the primary position fails.
What to do instead
For each request, state the rule relied on, the trigger condition and the consequence of refusal. Always pair a primary request with at least one auxiliary/conditional request where the procedure permits, and explain the tactical reason in one sentence. Practise drafting request sections (main and auxiliary) as a standalone exercise.
Failing to identify the correct procedural route and instance: filing at the wrong body (examining division versus opposition division versus Legal Division versus board of appeal), or choosing appeal when the correct remedy is review, further processing, re-establishment or a request for correction of a decision.
The scenarios deliberately mix fora and remedies, and several remedies are mutually exclusive or require a prior step (e.g. paying the fee, filing grounds within the period). Candidates recognise the problem but not the competent body or the admissible instrument.
What to do instead
Maintain a one-page decision tree mapping each adverse event (refusal, grant, opposition loss, missed time limit, procedural defect) to the competent instance, the admissible remedy, the fee and the period. Rehearse it on past scenarios until selection is automatic, then verify against the scenario's specific facts.
Writing advice to the client that is legally correct but unusable: no cost or fee indication, no recommendation, no risk assessment, no options with pros and cons, and no clear next step with dates.
Candidates focus on legal analysis and treat the letter as a formality. Paper F marks client-facing communication: a good letter tells the client what to decide, by when, at what cost, and what happens if they do nothing.
What to do instead
Use a fixed letter template: facts assumed, legal position, options (with cost, timing and risk for each), recommendation, action list with dates, and an invitation to instruct. Draft the recommendation sentence first, then build the letter around it. Keep the register plain and non-hedging.
Handling evidence and facts passively: accepting the client's assertions without checking consistency, failing to note which facts are unverified, and not identifying what evidence would be needed to prove a ground (e.g. prior use, common general knowledge, public availability).
Scenarios contain deliberate inconsistencies and gaps. Candidates treat the letter as settled fact and build strategy on it, or they assert a ground without stating the evidence that supports it, which is fatal in opposition and appeal where the burden and the facts matter.
What to do instead
After reading, list asserted facts, flag each as verified, unverified or contradicted, and note the evidence required to prove each contested point. In the answer, state the ground together with the evidence relied on and the gap to be filled. Ask the client targeted questions rather than assuming.
Poor document craft: unlabelled or unnumbered pages, no clear separation between tasks, illegible amendments, no indication of what has been deleted or inserted in a claim, and no consistent reference to the client, the patent and the parties.
Candidates draft as if for their own notes, not for a marker who must locate and credit each element. Amendments shown without strike-through/underline and without a clean version create ambiguity about the scope requested; unlabelled answers can be misattributed.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed layout: task number and deliverable at the top of each answer, numbered pages, party and patent references in the header, and amendments shown both marked-up and in clean form. Do a final legibility and labelling check, and sign and date documents that require it.