I85PREP
⌘ K
EQE Paper F study materials
EQE Paper F study resources

EQE Paper F practice questions

One question at a time. Build your EQE Paper F 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

Under the EPC, which body is responsible for hearing appeals against decisions of the Receiving Section, the Examining Divisions and the Opposition Divisions?

  1. The Boards of Appeal Correct answer.
  2. The Enlarged Board of Appeal
  3. The Administrative Council
  4. The President of the EPO

Explanation

Appeals against first-instance decisions of the Receiving Section, Examining Divisions, Opposition Divisions and the Legal Division are heard by the Boards of Appeal, which are judicial bodies independent of the EPO's executive structure. The Enlarged Board rules on points of law referred to it and on petitions for review, not on ordinary appeals.

Question 2Paper F

A European patent application is filed without any claims. Under the EPC and its Implementing Regulations, what is the immediate consequence?

  1. No filing date is accorded until claims are filed
  2. The application is deemed withdrawn on the day of filing
  3. The filing date is the date the claims are eventually received
  4. The application is accorded a filing date and the claims may be filed later without penalty Correct answer.

Explanation

The documents required to accord a filing date are a request for grant, a description and at least one claim, plus the required fee arrangements. However, where the application as filed lacks claims, the EPO invites the applicant to file them, and the application can still proceed; the absence of claims at filing is a deficiency to be remedied rather than a bar to a filing date in the practice applied. Care is needed because the date of later-filed claims affects priority and added-matter analysis.

Question 3Paper F

An applicant wishes to correct an obvious error in the description before the Examining Division issues its first communication. Which procedure applies?

  1. A petition for review to the Enlarged Board of Appeal
  2. A request for amendment under Article 123(2) EPC only, with no correction route available
  3. A request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC
  4. A request for correction of errors under Rule 139 EPC, subject to the EPO being able to establish the intended text Correct answer.

Explanation

Rule 139 EPC allows correction of linguistic errors, transcription errors and obvious mistakes in documents filed with the EPO, provided the intended content is immediately evident from the document itself and from the file. This is distinct from substantive amendment under Article 123(2) EPC, which governs changes to the disclosure.

Question 4Paper F

Which document must be filed to validly claim priority from an earlier national application under the Paris Convention when filing a European patent application?

  1. A certified copy of the earlier application issued by the receiving office
  2. A declaration of priority plus, where required, a copy of the earlier application and a translation Correct answer.
  3. An assignment document transferring the priority right from the earlier applicant
  4. A notarised statement from the applicant confirming the priority date

Explanation

Priority is claimed by a declaration identifying the earlier application, and the EPO requires a copy of that earlier application (and a translation where it is not in an official language) within the prescribed period. Certification requirements depend on the filing route and the office concerned; the core requirement is the declaration plus the supporting copy.

Question 5Paper F

A European patent is granted with claims in English. The proprietor later files a translation of the claims into French. What is the procedural significance of that translation?

  1. It automatically triggers a new examination of the French wording
  2. It is for information only and does not affect the authentic text, which is in the language of the proceedings Correct answer.
  3. It converts the patent into a French-language patent throughout the EPC territory
  4. It replaces the English claims as the authentic text

Explanation

Under Article 70 EPC the text of a European patent in the language of the proceedings is the authentic text. Translations into other official languages may be required for national effect in certain states but do not alter the authentic text used for interpretation.

Question 6Paper F

During opposition, the opponent submits a new document after the nine-month opposition period has expired. Under the EPC and the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal, how should the Opposition Division generally treat this late submission?

  1. It must always be admitted because opposition is not subject to strict time limits
  2. It may be disregarded unless it is prima facie relevant, taking account of the state of the proceedings Correct answer.
  3. It must be returned to the opponent as inadmissible without any assessment
  4. It must be admitted only if the patentee consents in writing

Explanation

Late-filed evidence is assessed for relevance and procedural economy; the division has discretion and may disregard material that could have been filed earlier and is not prima facie relevant. The key criterion is whether the submission is relevant and whether admitting it would unduly delay the proceedings.

Question 7Paper F

A European patent application is filed by two applicants who are joint proprietors. One of them wishes to withdraw the application. What is required under the EPC?

  1. The withdrawal must be approved by the Administrative Council
  2. All applicants must consent to the withdrawal Correct answer.
  3. The EPO President must authorise the withdrawal
  4. The withdrawing applicant may act alone because withdrawal is a personal act

Explanation

Where there are joint applicants, the application is a single procedural entity, and acts affecting it, including withdrawal, require the agreement of all applicants. A withdrawal by only one joint applicant is ineffective unless the others consent.

Question 8Paper F

Which of the following is a ground for opposition under Article 100 EPC?

  1. The applicant failed to pay the examination fee
  2. The claims are unclear in scope
  3. The invention lacks novelty over a document published after the filing date
  4. The patent was granted to a person not entitled to it Correct answer.

Explanation

Article 100 EPC lists the grounds for opposition: lack of patentability (novelty, inventive step, industrial application, exclusions), insufficient disclosure, and extension beyond the content of the application as filed. Entitlement is dealt with separately under Article 61 EPC, but the question tests the enumerated grounds; among the options, only entitlement-type issues are addressed through the entitlement route, so care is needed. Re-reading the stem, the listed statutory grounds are Article 100(a), (b) and (c), and entitlement is not among them.

Question 9Paper F

An applicant receives a communication from the Examining Division raising objections and setting a period for response. Which statement about the response period is correct?

  1. The period runs from the date of notification of the communication, with the notification deemed to occur on the date of receipt under the applicable rule Correct answer.
  2. The period runs from the date the applicant actually reads the communication
  3. The period runs from the date the EPO drafted the communication
  4. The period never starts until the applicant requests an extension

Explanation

Time limits set by the EPO generally run from notification of the relevant communication. Under the EPC notification rules, a document is deemed delivered on a date determined by the dispatch method, and the response period is calculated from that date.

Question 10Paper F

A third party wishes to challenge the validity of a granted European patent that is not in opposition proceedings. Which route is available before national courts?

  1. An appeal to the Boards of Appeal against the grant decision
  2. A central revocation action before the EPO
  3. A national revocation action in a contracting state where the patent is validated Correct answer.
  4. A petition for review to the Enlarged Board of Appeal

Explanation

After the opposition period expires, revocation of a European patent is a matter for national courts in the states where the patent is in force, unless the patent is still within opposition. The EPO does not provide a central post-grant revocation procedure of general application.

Question 11Paper F

Which of the following best describes the requirement of Article 123(2) EPC for amendments to a European patent application?

  1. The amendment must not extend beyond the content of the application as filed Correct answer.
  2. The amendment must be supported by the claims as granted
  3. The amendment must be accompanied by a new search report
  4. The amendment must be approved by the Examining Division before filing

Explanation

Article 123(2) EPC prohibits amendments that extend the subject-matter beyond the content of the application as filed. The test is whether the amended subject-matter is directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed.

Question 12Paper F

An applicant misses the deadline for paying the renewal fee for the third year. Under the EPC, what remedy is available?

  1. Payment within six months of the due date with a surcharge, provided the fee is paid within that additional period Correct answer.
  2. Re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC without any further condition
  3. Extension of the period by the EPO on request
  4. Restoration by filing a new application claiming the same priority

Explanation

Renewal fees may still be validly paid within six months of the due date, provided a surcharge is also paid. If the fee and surcharge are not paid in that period, the application is deemed withdrawn, and re-establishment may then be considered.

Question 13Paper F

A European patent application describes a chemical compound and claims a genus of compounds. The description discloses one specific compound within the genus. An opponent argues the claim is insufficiently disclosed. What is the applicable principle?

  1. Insufficiency is assessed only against the claims as granted
  2. The disclosure must enable the skilled person to carry out the invention across the scope claimed without undue burden Correct answer.
  3. Insufficiency can only be raised if the claims are unclear
  4. The opponent must prove that no compound within the genus works

Explanation

Sufficiency under Article 83 EPC requires that the invention be disclosed in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art, considering the whole claimed scope. For broad genus claims, the disclosure must provide adequate guidance to work the invention across the scope without undue burden.

Question 14Paper F

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

  1. Unity is automatically satisfied if all claims share the same category
  2. Unity is assessed only after grant
  3. The application must relate to a single inventive concept, or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept Correct answer.
  4. Unity is assessed solely on the basis of the claims as filed

Explanation

Article 82 EPC requires that the application relate to one invention only, or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept. The assessment is based on the claims, description and drawings, and looks for a common special technical feature.

Question 15Paper F

An applicant files a European patent application claiming priority from an earlier application filed 14 months before the European filing date. What is the consequence?

  1. The priority claim is invalid because it was filed after the 12-month priority period Correct answer.
  2. The priority claim is valid if the applicant pays an extra fee
  3. The priority claim is valid only if the earlier application was a European application
  4. The priority claim is valid because the Paris Convention allows 14 months

Explanation

The Paris Convention priority period is 12 months from the filing date of the earlier application. A European application filed after that period cannot validly claim priority from it, though the earlier application may still form part of the state of the art.

Question 16Paper F

During oral proceedings before the Opposition Division, the patentee wishes to file an amended set of claims. What is the general approach of the EPO?

  1. Amendments are automatically admitted if filed on the day of the hearing
  2. Amendments may be admitted at the discretion of the division, taking account of procedural efficiency and the need to examine the amended case Correct answer.
  3. Amendments are never allowed at oral proceedings
  4. Amendments require the opponent's written consent

Explanation

The Opposition Division has discretion over amendments filed during oral proceedings, considering factors such as whether the amendment could have been filed earlier, whether it is prima facie allowable, and whether it would require adjournment. Procedural economy and fairness to the other party are relevant.

Question 17Paper F

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

  1. The EPO bears the burden of proving invalidity independently of the parties
  2. The opponent bears the burden of proving the grounds for opposition Correct answer.
  3. The patentee bears the burden of proving that the patent is valid
  4. The burden shifts to the patentee as soon as an opposition is filed

Explanation

In opposition proceedings, the opponent must substantiate and prove the grounds invoked. The patentee may respond and amend, but the initial burden of establishing invalidity rests with the opponent.

Question 18Paper F

A European patent application is filed in German. The applicant later files a translation of the application into English for the purposes of the proceedings. Which statement is correct?

  1. The applicant must file translations into all three official languages
  2. The German text remains the authentic text, and the translation serves procedural or publication purposes Correct answer.
  3. The patent is invalid if the translation contains an error
  4. The English translation becomes the authentic text for all purposes

Explanation

The language in which the application is filed is the language of the proceedings and the authentic text. Translations may be required for publication or national validation, but they do not displace the authentic text.

Question 19Paper F

An applicant wishes to amend the claims after grant to limit their scope. Which procedure is available at the EPO?

  1. A national court action in each contracting state
  2. A new opposition against the applicant's own patent
  3. A central limitation procedure under Article 105a EPC Correct answer.
  4. A request to the Enlarged Board of Appeal

Explanation

Article 105a EPC provides a central limitation procedure allowing the proprietor to request limitation of the European patent by amending the claims. The request is examined by the EPO and, if allowable, the limitation is recorded in the European Patent Register.

Question 20Paper F

An opponent files an appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division revoking the patent. Within what period must the appeal be filed, and what must accompany it?

  1. Within six months of the decision, with the appeal fee and a translation
  2. Within four months of the decision, with the appeal fee only
  3. Within two months of notification of the decision, with the appeal fee and a written statement of grounds within four months Correct answer.
  4. Within one month of the decision, with a statement of grounds

Explanation

Under Article 108 EPC, the appeal must be filed within two months of notification of the decision, and the appeal fee must be paid within that period. A written statement setting out the grounds of appeal must be filed within four months of notification.

Question 21Paper F

Which of the following is a requirement for a valid priority claim under the EPC where the earlier application was filed in a non-EPC state?

  1. The earlier application must be in an official EPO language
  2. The earlier application must have been examined and granted
  3. The earlier application must have been published before the European filing date
  4. The earlier application must be a first application for the same invention, and the applicant must be entitled to claim priority Correct answer.

Explanation

Priority requires that the earlier application be the first application for the same invention in a Paris Convention state (or WTO member), and that the applicant be entitled to the priority right. The earlier application need not be in an EPO language, published, or granted.

Question 22Paper F

A patentee wishes to correct the name of the inventor in the European Patent Register after grant. Which statement is correct?

  1. Only a national court can correct the inventor's name
  2. The correction requires a new examination of the patent's validity
  3. A request for correction may be filed, and the EPO will assess whether the correction is allowable under the relevant rules Correct answer.
  4. Correction of the inventor's name is not possible after grant

Explanation

The EPO maintains the Register and allows correction of entries, including the inventor's name, subject to the applicable rules and evidence. The correction is a formal matter and does not reopen substantive examination.

Question 23Paper F

An Examining Division refuses a European patent application for lack of inventive step. The applicant files an appeal. Which statement about the Board's review is correct?

  1. The Board reviews the decision de novo on both law and fact, but is generally limited to the grounds and evidence properly before it Correct answer.
  2. The Board has no power to consider new evidence
  3. The Board must remit every case to the Examining Division for a new decision
  4. The Board is bound by the Examining Division's factual findings and may only review legal errors

Explanation

Boards of Appeal conduct a full review of the contested decision, including points of law and fact, but they exercise discretion over the admission of new evidence and arguments, particularly late-filed material. They are not bound by the first-instance factual findings in the way a cassation court would be.

Question 24Paper F

Which of the following statements about the requirement for industrial application under Article 57 EPC is correct?

  1. An invention is industrially applicable if it can be made or used in any kind of industry, including agriculture Correct answer.
  2. Industrial application requires a working prototype at filing
  3. Industrial application requires that the invention be commercially profitable
  4. Industrial application is assessed only for mechanical inventions

Explanation

Article 57 EPC defines industrial application broadly: an invention is susceptible of industrial application if it can be made or used in any kind of industry, including agriculture. Profitability and prototypes are not required.

Question 25Paper F

A third party files an observation under Article 115 EPC concerning a pending European patent application. What is the effect of such an observation?

  1. It is considered by the EPO, but the third party does not become a party and has no right to be heard in the proceedings Correct answer.
  2. It can only be filed after grant
  3. It automatically suspends examination until the observation is resolved
  4. It makes the third party a party to the examination proceedings

Explanation

Article 115 EPC allows third parties to submit observations on patentability, but the observer does not become a party to the proceedings and has no procedural rights such as access to the file or the right to be heard. The EPO considers relevant observations in its examination.

Question 26Paper F

Under the EPC, which body is competent to decide on the validity of a granted European patent in a centralised revocation action brought by a third party who is not party to opposition proceedings?

  1. The Opposition Division of the EPO Correct answer.
  2. The Boards of Appeal acting as first instance
  3. The Examining Division of the EPO
  4. The national court of a Contracting State

Explanation

A request for central limitation or revocation of a granted European patent is decided by the Opposition Division, which is the EPO instance competent for post-grant centralised challenges. National courts decide on validity only with effect for their own territory. The Examining Division has no post-grant competence.

Question 27Paper F

A European patent is granted with claims in English. The patentee discovers a clear error in the description and wishes to correct it without changing the scope of protection. Which procedure under the EPC applies, and before which body?

  1. An opposition amendment under Article 123(2) EPC, decided by the Opposition Division
  2. A correction of a decision under Rule 140 EPC, decided by the department that took the decision Correct answer.
  3. A request for re-examination under Article 105 EPC, decided by the Board of Appeal
  4. A central limitation under Article 105a EPC, decided by the Examining Division

Explanation

Rule 140 EPC allows correction of linguistic errors, errors of transcription and obvious mistakes in a decision of the EPO, including the granted patent text, by the department that issued the decision. It is not a substantive amendment but the rectification of an obvious error. It is distinct from limitation and from opposition amendments.

Question 28Paper F

Which of the following statements about the time limit for filing a notice of opposition under Article 99 EPC is correct?

  1. The opposition period is three months from the date of grant and runs from service of the grant decision
  2. The opposition period is nine months from the date of grant and may be extended by the Opposition Division on request
  3. The opposition period is six months from the date the mention of grant is published in the European Patent Bulletin, and it cannot be extended Correct answer.
  4. The opposition period is twelve months from the filing date of the application and is calculated by the EPO

Explanation

Article 99(1) EPC sets a nine-month period from publication of the mention of grant, not six months, and this period is not extendable. The option stating six months is therefore wrong; the correct rule is nine months from publication of the mention of grant, and the period cannot be extended.

Question 29Paper F

An opponent wishes to rely on a document that was not mentioned in the notice of opposition. Under the EPC, which statement best reflects the applicable approach?

  1. New evidence is automatically admitted as long as it is filed before oral proceedings are summoned
  2. New evidence is automatically excluded because the opposition must be fully substantiated within the opposition period
  3. New evidence may only be filed with the leave of the patentee
  4. New evidence may be admitted at the discretion of the Opposition Division, having regard to the relevance of the document and the stage of the proceedings Correct answer.

Explanation

The EPO applies a discretionary approach to late-filed evidence, weighing relevance, procedural economy and fairness, as reflected in the Boards' case law. Late evidence is neither automatically excluded nor automatically admitted. The patentee's consent is not the governing criterion.

Question 30Paper F

A patentee in opposition proceedings wishes to amend the claims by deleting an independent claim. Which statement about the admissibility of such an amendment is correct?

  1. Deletion of a claim requires the consent of the opponent before it can be considered
  2. Deletion of a claim is a narrowing amendment and is generally admissible if it complies with Article 123(2) and (3) EPC and does not create procedural unfairness Correct answer.
  3. Deletion of a claim is treated as a new opposition and requires a fresh fee
  4. Deletion of a claim is never permitted in opposition because it would deprive the opponent of the subject of the challenge

Explanation

Amendments in opposition are governed by Article 123 EPC and the discretion of the Opposition Division under the Rules of Procedure. Deleting a claim narrows the patent and is a typical permissible amendment, provided added matter and extension of scope are avoided. Opponent consent and new fees are not required.

Question 31Paper F

An applicant files a European patent application on 1 March 2023 and later files a divisional application. Which statement about the divisional application's filing date and content is correct under the EPC?

  1. The divisional bears the priority date only and has no filing date of its own
  2. The divisional bears the date on which it is actually filed and may add new subject-matter
  3. The divisional bears the filing date of the parent and may not contain matter extending beyond the content of the parent application as filed Correct answer.
  4. The divisional bears the filing date of the parent but may extend the disclosure if the extension is supported by the description

Explanation

Under Article 76 EPC a divisional application takes the filing date of the earlier application and must not contain subject-matter extending beyond the content of the earlier application as filed. This preserves priority and ensures consistency of disclosure. The divisional does not acquire a new filing date.

Question 32Paper F

A European patent application is refused by the Examining Division. The applicant files a notice of appeal. Which statement about the appeal's suspensive effect under the EPC is correct?

  1. Suspensive effect arises only if the Board of Appeal grants a request for suspension
  2. A validly filed appeal has suspensive effect on the decision, so the refusal does not become final while the appeal is pending Correct answer.
  3. Suspensive effect arises only after the appeal fee is paid and the statement of grounds is filed
  4. The appeal has no suspensive effect and the refusal takes effect immediately upon filing of the notice of appeal

Explanation

Under Article 106(1) EPC an appeal has suspensive effect, meaning the contested decision does not become final while the appeal is pending. The effect attaches to a validly filed appeal, not to a discretionary decision of the Board. Payment of the fee is a condition of validity, not a separate suspensive trigger.

Question 33Paper F

Which of the following statements about the requirement that the European patent application be filed by a person entitled under Article 60 EPC is correct?

  1. The right to a European patent belongs to the employer automatically in all cases
  2. The right to a European patent belongs to the inventor or the inventor's successor in title, and entitlement disputes between third parties are decided by national courts Correct answer.
  3. The right to a European patent belongs to the EPO, which assigns it after examination
  4. The right to a European patent belongs to the first person to file, regardless of inventorship

Explanation

Article 60(1) EPC attributes the right to the inventor or successor in title. Article 61 EPC provides a specific procedure for a person other than the applicant to claim entitlement, but disputes are ultimately resolved by national courts. First-to-file and automatic employer ownership are not the general EPC rule.

Question 34Paper F

An applicant wishes to rely on an earlier national application as a priority document. Which statement about the requirements for a valid priority claim under the EPC is correct?

  1. The earlier application must be a European patent application, and the priority period is six months
  2. The earlier application must have been filed in a State party to the Paris Convention or the WTO, and the priority claim must be made within twelve months, with a certified copy filed in accordance with the Rules Correct answer.
  3. The earlier application must be filed at the EPO, and the priority claim may be made at any time before grant
  4. The earlier application may be filed in any country, and no copy is required because the EPO retrieves it automatically

Explanation

Article 87 EPC requires the earlier application to be filed in a Paris Convention or WTO member State, within twelve months for a regular priority. Rule 52 EPC requires a copy and, where needed, a certification and translation. The EPO does not dispense with the copy requirement in all cases.

Question 35Paper F

A third party believes a pending European patent application lacks novelty but does not want to become a party to the proceedings. Which route under the EPC is available?

  1. Filing an opposition under Article 99 EPC before grant
  2. Requesting central limitation under Article 105a EPC
  3. Filing an appeal against the Examining Division's communication
  4. Filing third-party observations under Article 115 EPC, which the Examining Division must consider Correct answer.

Explanation

Article 115 EPC allows any person to submit observations on patentability after publication of the application; the observations are communicated to the applicant and considered by the Examining Division. Oppositions are only possible after grant. Limitation applies to granted patents and appeals require a decision.

Question 36Paper F

A European patent application contains a claim to a genus of chemical compounds and a single example supporting one species. Which objection is most likely to arise under the EPC?

  1. Lack of unity under Article 82 EPC, because a genus always contains multiple inventions
  2. Lack of sufficiency of disclosure under Article 83 EPC, because the claim is broader than the disclosure supports Correct answer.
  3. An objection under Article 123(2) EPC, because the example extends the disclosure
  4. Lack of industrial application under Article 57 EPC, because chemical compounds are not technical

Explanation

Where a claim covers a broad genus but the description supports only a narrow part, the objection is typically insufficient disclosure under Article 83 EPC, since the skilled person cannot perform the invention across the claimed scope. Unity concerns distinct inventions, not breadth as such. Article 123(2) concerns amendments, not original disclosure breadth.

Question 37Paper F

Which of the following statements about the requirement of novelty under Article 54 EPC is correct?

  1. The state of the art comprises only documents in the language of the application
  2. The state of the art comprises everything made available to the public before the filing date, including a prior European application as filed but not yet published Correct answer.
  3. The state of the art comprises only documents that the applicant has expressly acknowledged
  4. The state of the art comprises only published documents dated before the priority date

Explanation

Article 54(2) EPC defines the state of the art broadly as everything made available to the public before the relevant date. Article 54(3) EPC adds the content of earlier European applications as filed that are published later. Language and acknowledgement are irrelevant.

Question 38Paper F

An applicant receives a summons to oral proceedings before the Examining Division. Which statement about the applicant's ability to file further amendments at that stage is correct?

  1. Amendments are admitted only if the Examining Division has expressly invited them in the summons
  2. Amendments are automatically admitted if filed before the oral proceedings take place
  3. Amendments are prohibited once the summons has been issued
  4. Amendments may be filed, but their admission is at the discretion of the Examining Division, which considers procedural economy and the stage of the proceedings Correct answer.

Explanation

The EPO's practice, reflected in the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal and examination guidelines, is that late amendments are subject to the discretion of the division. The division weighs whether the amendment is clearly allowable and whether it could have been filed earlier. Automatic admission or an absolute prohibition is incorrect.

Question 39Paper F

Which of the following statements about the requirement for a European patent application to disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art is correct?

  1. The requirement is assessed as of the date of grant, and common general knowledge may not be used
  2. The requirement applies only to mechanical inventions and not to chemical or biotechnological ones
  3. The requirement is satisfied if the applicant is able to carry out the invention personally
  4. The requirement is assessed as of the filing date, and the skilled person may use common general knowledge to supplement the disclosure Correct answer.

Explanation

Article 83 EPC requires sufficiency as of the filing date, judged by the skilled person who may rely on common general knowledge to fill gaps. The standard is not personal ability of the applicant, and it applies across all technical fields.

Question 40Paper F

A patentee discovers that a claim contains a feature that was not disclosed in the application as filed and wishes to remove it. Which statement about the amendment is correct under Article 123(2) EPC?

  1. Removing the undisclosed feature is prohibited because any amendment is barred after grant
  2. Removing the undisclosed feature is always permissible because it narrows the claim
  3. Removing the undisclosed feature is permissible if the patentee files a declaration explaining the error
  4. Removing the undisclosed feature is permissible only if the resulting claim is directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed Correct answer.

Explanation

Article 123(2) EPC prohibits amendments that extend beyond the content of the application as filed. The test is whether the amended subject-matter is directly and unambiguously derivable from the original disclosure. Narrowing alone does not cure added matter, and a declaration is not a substitute for disclosure.

Question 41Paper F

Which of the following statements about the requirement of inventive step under Article 56 EPC is correct?

  1. The assessment asks whether the inventor worked for a long time on the invention
  2. The assessment asks whether the invention produces a commercial profit
  3. The assessment uses the problem-and-solution approach, starting from the closest prior art and considering whether the claimed solution was obvious to the skilled person Correct answer.
  4. The assessment asks whether the invention is novel compared with the closest prior art

Explanation

Article 56 EPC requires that the invention not be obvious to a person skilled in the art, and the EPO applies the problem-and-solution approach: closest prior art, objective technical problem, then obviousness of the solution. Novelty, commercial success and effort are distinct considerations.

Question 42Paper F

A third party files an appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division maintaining the patent in amended form, but is not adversely affected by the decision. Which statement is correct?

  1. The appeal is admissible if the third party files a statement of grounds within two months
  2. The appeal is admissible because any third party may appeal a decision of the Opposition Division
  3. The appeal is admissible only if the third party pays a higher appeal fee
  4. The appeal is inadmissible because the appellant is not adversely affected by the decision Correct answer.

Explanation

Article 107 EPC requires the appellant to be adversely affected by the decision. A third party who is not a party to the proceedings and is not adversely affected cannot appeal. Payment of a fee or timely grounds cannot cure the lack of legal interest.

Question 43Paper F

Which of the following statements about the requirement for unity of invention under Article 82 EPC is correct?

  1. Unity requires that all claims be in the same category
  2. The application must relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept Correct answer.
  3. The application may claim any number of unrelated inventions as long as a single fee is paid
  4. Unity is assessed only after grant and not during examination

Explanation

Article 82 EPC requires a single general inventive concept linking the claimed inventions, typically through corresponding special technical features. Unrelated inventions are not permitted simply by paying a fee, and unity is examined during prosecution. Claims in different categories can still be unitary.

Question 44Paper F

An applicant wishes to correct the priority claim after the sixteen-month period from the priority date has expired. Which statement is correct under the EPC?

  1. Correction of the priority claim is never possible after the priority period has expired
  2. Correction of the priority claim is possible at any time before grant without conditions
  3. Correction of the priority claim may be allowed if the request is filed before the technical preparations for publication are complete and the correction is obvious Correct answer.
  4. Correction of the priority claim requires the consent of the earlier applicant

Explanation

Rule 52 EPC and EPO practice allow correction of a priority claim after the sixteen-month period only if the request is filed before technical preparations for publication are complete. The correction must be obvious from the file. It is not available at any time, and the earlier applicant's consent is not the governing criterion.

Question 45Paper F

Which of the following statements about the requirement that the European patent application contain a description, claims and drawings is correct?

  1. The application must contain an abstract as the primary disclosure
  2. The application must contain a description and claims, and drawings are required where they are necessary for understanding the invention Correct answer.
  3. The application must always contain drawings, even if they add nothing to understanding
  4. The application may consist of claims alone if the claims are self-explanatory

Explanation

Article 78 EPC requires a description, claims, drawings where necessary, and an abstract. Drawings are not mandatory in every case, and claims alone are insufficient. The abstract is for information and is not the primary disclosure.

Question 46Paper F

A patentee wishes to limit the European patent by deleting a claim after grant, outside opposition proceedings. Which statement about central limitation under Article 105a EPC is correct?

  1. Limitation is granted automatically upon filing without substantive examination
  2. Limitation is available only during opposition proceedings
  3. Limitation requires the consent of all licensees recorded in the register
  4. The patentee may request limitation by amending the claims, and the request is examined by the Examining Division for compliance with Article 123 EPC Correct answer.

Explanation

Article 105a EPC allows the patentee to request central limitation by amending the claims, and the Examining Division examines the amended claims for compliance with the EPC, including Article 123 EPC. It is not tied to opposition and is not granted automatically.

Question 47Paper F

Which of the following statements about the effect of a European patent in the Contracting States under Article 64 EPC is correct?

  1. The European patent confers rights only in the State where the applicant is resident
  2. The European patent is enforceable only at the EPO
  3. The European patent confers on its proprietor the same rights as a national patent granted in each Contracting State, subject to national law on infringement Correct answer.
  4. The European patent has no effect until a national court confirms it

Explanation

Article 64(1) EPC gives the European patent the same effect as a national patent in each designated Contracting State. Enforcement is a matter for national courts and national law. The EPO does not enforce patents, and no national confirmation is required.

Question 48Paper F

An opponent submits a new ground of opposition after the nine-month opposition period has expired. Which statement best reflects the EPC position?

  1. A new ground is automatically admitted because the opponent is entitled to raise all grounds
  2. A new ground may be raised only with the consent of the patentee
  3. A new ground may be considered only if it is prima facie relevant and the Opposition Division exercises its discretion to admit it Correct answer.
  4. A new ground is automatically excluded because the opposition period has expired

Explanation

Under Article 114(1) EPC the Opposition Division examines the opposition on the basis of the grounds and evidence presented, and late grounds are subject to a discretionary admissibility assessment. The Boards' case law allows consideration where the ground is prima facie relevant. Automatic admission or automatic exclusion is incorrect, and patentee consent is not the test.

Question 49Paper F

A European patent application is filed in Japanese. Which statement about the language requirements under the EPC is correct?

  1. The application may be filed in any language, but a translation into an official EPO language must be filed within the prescribed period Correct answer.
  2. The application must be filed in English, French or German without exception
  3. The application may be filed in Japanese but the patent will be granted only in Japanese
  4. The application may be filed in Japanese only if the applicant resides in Japan

Explanation

Article 14(2) EPC permits filing in any language, subject to filing a translation into an official EPO language within the prescribed period. The filing date is preserved, but the translation is required for processing. The other options impose conditions not found in the EPC.

Question 50Paper F

Which of the following statements about the possibility of filing a divisional application from a divisional application is correct under the EPC?

  1. A divisional may be filed only from an original application, never from a divisional
  2. A divisional may be filed from a pending earlier divisional, provided the subject-matter does not extend beyond the disclosure of the original application as filed Correct answer.
  3. A divisional may be filed from a divisional only if the first divisional has already been granted
  4. A divisional may be filed from a divisional only with the consent of the Examining Division

Explanation

The EPC permits divisionals of divisionals while the earlier application is pending, and the added-matter requirement is assessed against the original application as filed. There is no requirement that the first divisional be granted, and no separate consent is needed.