March 04, 2026 Our provisional answers to F 2026 - Part 1

 Dear all,

Apolgies for being so late with posting our answers to the legal part of paper F. Our legal team sat paper D yesterday as benchmarkers and we have been busy. 

This year's questions seemed strightforward and we encountered no surprises, but very much look forward to your comments on the questions and our answers.

Paper F1 2026: Legal Questions

 

Question 1

 1-1: International applications filed under the PCT can be the subject of proceedings before the EPO. In such proceeding, the provisions of the EPC will prevail in cases of conflict between the provisions of the PCT and the provisions of the EPC.

 False

Art. 150(2) EPC: Previsions of the PCT prevail in cases of conflict

 

1-2: The European Patent Office and the European Patent Organisation are synonyms for the same legal entity

 False

Art. 4(2) EPC

They are not the same. The Office (EPO) is one organ of the Organisation.

The other organ is the Administrative Council.

 

1-3: The European Patent Office is the only authority in Europe to act as International Searching Authority.

 False

Other patent offices in Europe act as ISA

For example, the Spanish Office, the Swedish Office, the Finnish Office – Annex D of AG-IP

 

1-4: A granted European patent allows the proprietor under all circumstances to make, use,

Sell and distribute the invention in all contracting states to the EPC.

 False

A patent is a right to prevent others from exploiting your invention.

It is possible for e.g. a product to be novel and inventive over a claimed product that is covered by a granted European patent, but fall under the scope of protection of that patent. 

 

 Question 2

M is a natural person of Spanish nationality residing in Poland. M wishes to file a European patent application, EP-M, in Spanish.

Spanish is an official language of Spain and Polish is an official language of Poland.

 

 

2-1: False

The Official languages of the EPO are English, French and German - Art 14(1) EPC

 

2-2 True

An EP application can be filed in any language  - Art.14(2) EPC.

A filing date is accorded when the application satisfies the requirements of R, 40(1) EPC

 

2-3: True – Art. 14(4) EPC

Applicant lives in Poland and Polish is an admissible non-EPO language.

A response to an Office action is a document to be filed within a time limit, so Polish can be used as the language of argumentation

The time limit to provide the translation is 1m filing the reply – R. 6(2) EPC

 

 

 

2-4: True

French is an official EPO language – R 14(1)

so may be used in written proceedings R. 3(1) EPC

NB: only amendments need to be filed in the Language of proceedings – R. 3(2)

 

Question 3   (4 marks)

European patent application EP-B validly claims priority of an earlier application, PR-B

The subject matter of EP-B and PR-B is identical.

EP-B complies with all requirements of the EPC.

 

 

3-1 False

Accorded date of filing is date when EP filing meets requirements of R. 40(1) EPC

 

 

 

3-2: True – Art. 89 EPC

 

 

3-3: True: Art. 93(1) EPC

 

 

3-4: False: 20 years from filing date – Art. 63(1) EPC

 

Question 4 (4 marks)

 

4-1: Pending European application EP-Y was filed on 7 March 2024.

The renewal fee for the third year is due on:

 

31 March 2026 – R. 51(1) EPC

 

2-2: The renewal fee can be validly paid today

 

True: Today is less than 6m before the due date – R. 51(1) EPC

 

Question 5 (3 marks)

 European patent application EP-Z was validly filed on 2 December 2025 with the following elements: a description, claims and an abstract.

EP-Z validly claims priority of a national application DK-Z

 

Which of the following elements belong to EP-Z “as filed” within the meaning of Art. 123(2) EPC?

Answer:

Description, claims and drawings belong to the application as filed.

Abstract is informative only – Art. 85 EPC and Search Division is responsible for its content

Priority document does not form part of the application as filed – T260/85

 

Question 6 (3 marks)

 D is the applicant for a European patent application EP-1. Yesterday D received a communication informing them of the text in which the examining division intends to grant EP-D.

D wishes to proceed to grant with EP-D

Which of the following acts need to be performed within 4 months of receipt of the communication?

 

 

Answer

D has received a communication under R. 71(3) EPC.

Assuming that D wants to approve the text intended for grant, the necessary acts are to file a translation of the claims into the other 2 official languages and payment of the fee for grant and publishing.

Statements 6-2 and 6-3 are true

Approval is done by performing these acts. There is no need to specifically declare approval in writing.

Statement 6-1 is false

Statement 6-4 also false (no legal basis for this; only the claims need to be translated)

 

Comment: it is not obligatory to reply to the R. 71(3) communication by approving the text intended for grant. Also possible to disapprove the text within the 4m period by requesting reasoned amendments / corrections – R. 71(6) EPC. But since the applicant wants to proceed to grant, it is reasonable to assume that the questions relates to the acts necessary for approving the text.

Question 7 (3 points)

 

 

Answer

Option 1: Not possible

Granted claim is directed to A+B.

Proposed amendment to A only would increase scope of protection and violates Art. 123(3) EPC

 

Option 2 also not possible because deletion of feature B from granted main claim violates Art. 123(3) EPC

 

Options 3 is a limitation and has basis in the application as filed.

The amendment satisfies Art. 123(2) EPC.

The amendment overcomes lack of novelty over the 54(3) prior art, and is allowable because it addresses a ground of opposition – R. 80 EPC

 

Question 8 (3 points)

European patent EP-U does not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art.

 

8-1: False – violates Art. 123(2) EPC

 

8-2: True

Lack of novelty is a ground of opposition – Art. 100(a) EPC

And amendments which are occasioned by any ground of opposition may be filed – R. 80 EPC

 

Question 9 (4 marks)

Applicant A is a Dutch national and intends to file an international patent application PCT-A in Dutch with the Netherlands Patent Office

9-1: True – NPO is a competent receiving office for Dutch nationals and accepts IAs filed in Dutch – AG-IP Annex C-NL

 

9-2: False  - NPO will be the receiving office.

 

9-3: True – EPO is the only available ISA for IAs filed at NPO as rO - Art. 152 EPC; EPO-WIPO Agreement, Art. 3; Annex A; AG-IP Annex C-NL

 

9-4: False – IB is not an international searching authority; it is a competent rO for applicants from any contracting state – R. 19.1(a)iii PCT.

When applications are filed with IB as rO, the competent ISA is an ISA that would be competent had the IA been filed at the applicant’s competent rO in view of nationality or residency – R. 35.3 PCT.

 

9-5: False – EPO as ISA will search in Dutch for IAs filed in Dutch with NPO - EPO-WIPO Agreement, Art. 3, Annex A; GL-PCT/EPO A-VII, 3.2

No translation required under R. 12.3 PCT

 

9-6: False – Dutch is not a publication language. Art.21(4), R.48.3(a) PCT

So translation is needed for publication – R. 12.4 PCT

 

Question 10

 

10-1: True – Art.117(1)(d)

10-2: True – GL E-IV, 1.2

10-3: True – R.118(2)(d)

 

Question 11 (4 marks)

Company C is the owner of a European patent EP-C, which was granted with 2 independent claims.

Company C would like to limit EP-C to the first independent claim and delete the second independent claim.

Answers

11-1: False; no time limit for requesting limitation; is done at the request of the proprietor – Art. 105a(1) EPC

9m period is for filing an opposition – Art. 99(1)

 

11-2: False; can also request limitation of an expired patent (see e.g. GL D-X 1)

 

11-3: False; cannot file a request for limitation while opposition proceedings are pending - Art. 105a(2) EPC

 

11-4: False; Examining division will offer one opportunity to correct the deficiencies - R.95(2) EPC

 

Question 12

European patent application EP-X claims priority from French patent application FR-X

EP-X was filed by the same applicant and within the 12m period.

Consider the following situations:

 

Situation a:

FR-X as filed claims and describes a lunch box made of aluminium.

EP-X as filed claims and describes a lunch box made of metal.

 

Situation b:

FR-X as filed claims and describes a lunch box made of metal.

EP-X as filed claims and describes a lunch box made of aluminium.

 

Answer

In situation a: the priority claim of EP-X is partially valid (option 3) – G1/15.

Claim will be entitled to partial priority. The conceptual part of the claim in which the metal is aluminium will have the effective date of the priority date, and the conceptual part of the claim in which the metal is not aluminium will have the filing date as the effective date.

 

In situation b, the priority claim is not valid (option 2).

Aluminium is a species of metal; meaning the claim of EP-X is novel over the priority document FR-X. Therefore, priority cannot be valid as claim does not relate to same invention- Art. 87 EPC

 

Question 13 (3 marks)

13-1: False – GL G-VII 5.1

“.. .the applicant or proprietor cannot refute the argument that the claimed subject-matter lacks inventive step by submitting that a more promising springboard is available: a piece of prior art on the basis of which the claimed invention is considered non-obvious cannot be "closer" than a document on the basis of which the claimed invention appears obvious, because it is evident in this situation that the former is not the most promising springboard from which to arrive at the invention (T 1742/12, Reasons 6.5; T 824/05, Reasons 6.2).

 

13-2: False – GL G-VII 6

 

Question 14 (3 marks)

 

14-1: False; Amount is different if filed online than if filed not-online. RFees 2(1)

14-2: True; R.38(1) EPC

14-3: False; filing fee is due on the filing date of the application, but may be paid up to one month later. GL A-X 5.2.1

 

Question 15 (2 marks)

 

International patent application PCT-Q was filed on 20 July 2024.

It claims priority from an Italian patent application filed on 1 August 2023.

The time limit for entering the EP phase expires on:

 2 March 2026

1/8/23 (priority date) + 31m [R.159(1); R131(4)] à 1/3/26 (Sunday) [R134(1)] à 2/3/2026 (Monday)

 

 

 

March 03, 2026 Our provisional answers to F 2026 – Part 2

This year the invention in the part 2 case of the F paper had a lot more body than in the 2025 paper. The invention was about reinforcement of concrete, in order to make it better suited to withstand tensile forces. While in the prior art steel-base reinforcement structures were used, the invention proposes to use fibres instead. The first thing that caught my eye was that we are presented with a significant number of different embodiments. Also there is quite some information in the paper about definitions (what something is or is not) and even a non-working embodiment.

 

After we received the questions and printable documents from some of you (thanks!!!), Sander and I sat down to do the paper. Below you’ll find what we came up with. Please note that this is just our take on the questions, and that our answers and considerations may deviate from the official ones.

 

Q1: Are all items D1 – D4 considered as being comprised in the state of the art under the EPC? 

YES

The filing date of the application is 12 February 2026. So, according to art. 54(2) EPC, everything made available to the public before that date is comprised in the state of the art.

D1: video published on internet platform on  31 Dec 2025 -> yes, publicly available before filing date

D2: US application published 1980 -> yes

D3: EP application published 2023 -> yes

D4: history book from 1960’s about ancient construction methods -> yes

Note that the question is not about the relevance of the contents of D1-D4 for any of the claims as filed.

 

Q2:The subject-matter of claim 1 as originally filed is novel over the prior art D1 – D4

D1: does not disclose “reinforcement structure embedded in matrix” -> so claim 1 is novel

D2: does not disclose “reinforcement structure comprising fibres” -> so claim 1 is novel

Note: see the final sentence of page 1 of the description: “Steel rods are not fibres”

D3: all features disclosed, claim 1 is not novel

D4: all features disclosed, claim 1 is not novel

Note: straw is natural fibre, see the last paragraph of page 1 of the description: “Many natural substances are fibres such as cotton, wool or straw fibres”. So, the straw of D4 contains fibres.

Q3:The subject-matter of claim 2 as originally filed is novel over the prior art D1 – D4

Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, so we have to consider the features of both claim 1 and claim 2 in combination with each other.

 

D1: claim 2 is novel in view of D1 because claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and claim 1 is novel in view of D1.

D2: claim 2 is novel in view of D2 because claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and claim 1 is novel in view of D2.

D3:

- D3 discloses all features of claim 1 (see Q2).

- D3 says in the first sentence “a textile-reinforced concrete construction element for buildings comprises a woven fabric as a reinforcement structure.”

The 4^th paragraph of page 2 of the description (I would have loved it if the paragraphs were simply numbered…): “In a preferred embodiment, the reinforcement structure is a textile structure made of the fibres. A textile structure is a two-dimensional sheet-like structure made of fibre materials. Such structures are also called fabrics.”-> so the feature that the reinforcement structure is a textile structure comprising the fibres is also disclosed in D3.

- But then the feature that “the matrix comprises a mineral aggregate and cement. D3 discloses concrete. According to the second paragraph of page 1 of the description: “Concrete is a well-known construction material which is much appreciated for its durability. It is a composite material comprising a mineral aggregate, such as gravel or sand, and a binder, which is normally cement”. So, concrete can have a binder that is not cement, which means that cement is not an implicit feature (as it is not inevitable). So, however obvious it may be to have cement as the binder, it is not as such disclosed in D3.

So, D3 does not disclose all features of claim 2 . So, claim 2 is novel in view of D3.

 

D4 does not disclose the matrix comprises a mineral aggregate and cement (instead it discloses clay), and the reinforcement structure is a textile structure comprising the fibres. (instead it discloses loose straw fibres and A collection of loose fibres is not a textile -> see 4^th par. page 2 description). So claim 2 is novel in view of D4.

Q4: The subject-matter of claims 3 to 5 as originally filed is novel over the prior art D3

Claim 3:

- Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2, D3 does not disclose all features of claim 2 (see Q3),

So, claim 3 is novel in view of D3.

 

Claim 4:

- Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3, D3 does not discloses all features of claim 3 (see above)

- D3 discloses fabric coated with epoxy resin, fabric made of glass fibres. So D3 discloses fibres coated with epoxy resin, but that’s not relevant because it does not disclose all features of claim 3.

So, claim 4 is novel in view of D3.

 

Claim 5:

- Claim 5 is dependent on claim 3 or claim 4; claim 4 is dependent on claim 3. So claim 5 + claim 3 is the broadest version of claim 5, so that’s the one to evaluate.

- D3 does not discloses all features of claim 3 (see above)

- in addition, non-crimp fabric is not disclosed in D3

So, claim 5 is novel in view of D3.

 

Q5:The subject-matter of claim 6 as originally filed is novel over the prior art D1 – D4

D1: we had some internal discussion on this one. D1 clearly discloses the following features

- “construction element comprising concrete” -> yes, concrete blocks

- “..further comprises a textile structure”-> yes, the carpet

But does D1 disclose a building? The video only shows a room. I’ve read D1 a couple of times before answering this question, but it really just says “room”. As per our later internal discussion (including not just Sander and myself) we came to the conclusion that you cannot have room with a carpet in and ready for putting wallpaper up if you don’t have a building. That would make the building implicit in the disclosure of D1, as it is inevitable to have a building if you want to do what’s done in the video.

Therefore, out conclusion is that claim 6 is not novel in view of D1.

 

D2: claim 6 is novel, because there is no textile structure disclosed in D2

D3: claim 6 is not novel, as clearly all features are disclosed (including the building)

D4: claim 6 is novel, as D4 does not disclose concrete, and also no textile (only loose fibres)

 

Q6: Closest prior art for claim 5?

D3: same technical field and most features in common

 

Q7: Amended set of claims does not comply with Art. 84 because:

1. “In a building” renders claim 1 unclear -> true (GL F-IV, 4.15 (i))

2. Ultra-high molecular weight renders claim 2 unclear ->false, is this refers to a well known material so “ultra-high molecular weight” has a well recognised meaning in the art (GL F-IV, 4.6)

3. Woven fabric is product-by-process which is not allowable under 84 -> false, product-by-process claims are not by definition unallowable

4. Claims 1 and 3 contradict each other -> true, woven and non-crimp are alternatives, see final paragraph of page 2 of the description. Note that the claims say “textile structure is”, not “textile structure comprises”. The textile structure cannot be woven and non-crimp at the same time

 

Q8: Amended claim 7 is dependent on amended claim 4?

No, because not all features of claim 4 are present in amended claim 7

Note that this question is kind of similar to the question that was neutralised last year. However, I think in the current case the situation is rather clear.

 

Q9: Do claims 1 – 3 meet the requirements of Art. 123(2):

Claim 1: No. While the application as filed does disclose a textile structure that is present in a building, and that the textile structure can be a woven fabric, there is not disclosure of such a textile structure without the matrix.

Look at the penultimate paragraph of page 1 of the description of the application as filed, which says: “It is essential for the invention that the known steel reinforcement structure be replaced by a reinforcement structure comprising fibres and that the reinforcement structure be embedded in the matrix.” This is also reflected by claim 1 as filed.

So, you cannot leave out the feature of the matrix, this violates the first criterion of the essentiality test (removal or replacement of a feature, GL H-V, 3.1).

Note that this is not an intermediate generalisation! Intermediate generalisation is extracting a specific feature in isolation from an originally disclosed combination of features and using it to delimit claimed subject-matter (first lines of GL H-V, 3.2.1). In this case, the claim has been broadened, not limited.

 

Claim 2: No, as this amendment has same problem as claim 1.

Claim 3: No, as this amendment has same problem as claim 1. In addition, there is no disclosure of woven fabric that is a non-crimp fabric. Woven and non-crimp are presented as alternatives. And claims say “textile structure is”, not “textile structure comprises”

 

We found this a bit of a strange question, as all three claims seem to violate Art. 123(2) EPC for the same reason.

 

Q10: Amended claims 4-7 meet the requirements of Art. 123(2)? :

NOTE: I changed our initial answer with respect to amended claim 6!

Amended claim 4: Yes. Basis is claims 1+ 2 +3 as filed (minus the optional feature of claim 3 as filed)

Amended claim 5: Yes. Basis  is claims 1+2 +3 as filed (including the optional feature of claim 3 as filed)

Amended claim 6: No, the second paragraph of page 2 of the description talks about adding the coating tin order to protect the glass against the alkaline environment. There’s no disclosure of the bonding effect in the description. The bonding effect is also not implicitly disclosed (=inevitable) because according to D3 you need a certain thickness to achieve the binding effect and that thickness is not provided in the invention. Therefore the bonding effect not directly an unambiguously derivable from the application as filed and cannot be put it in the claim.

Amended claim 7: This was again one that required some internal discussion, but in the end we decided that this amended claim complies with Art. 123(2) EPC, so we are of the opinion that the answer is yes.

It was however a bit of a puzzle. The claims as filed only give direct basis for the glass fibres, not for carbon. The final three paragraphs of the description, which talks about the textile structure do not explicitly mention the materials of the fibres.

In the first paragraph of page 2 of the description, carbon and glass seem to be presented as alternatives, but there is no clear indication that you can simply swap glass for carbon in all embodiments. So, saying that it is disclosed that you can simply replace the glass fibres in the claims as filed by the carbon fibres seems a bit bold.

We came to the conclusion that there is basis for amended claim 7 is as follows: when you look at the disclosure of the description as a whole, the combination of features of claim 4 is disclosed. Then, the fourth paragraph of page 2 of the description starts with “In a preferred embodiment, the reinforcement structure is a textile structure made of the fibres.” The only fibres that are mentioned before that are useable in for high tensile strength applications are glass and carbon. From this we concluded that “the fibres” must refer to “glass or carbon”. Therewith, the description as filed discloses all features of amended claim 7.

 

Q11: Amended claim 1 novel over D1-D4?

Note: this felt a bit tricky because amended claim 1 is not clear. But in he end the building was not the feature that the answer hinged upon.
D1: claim 1 is not novel in view of D1, because the carpet is a woven fabric

D2: claim 1 is novel in view of D2, because D2 does not disclose a textile structure

D3: not novel

D4: novel

 

Q12: Amended claims 5-7 novel in view of D3?

Am. Claim 5: novel, no disclosure of alkali-resistant in D3

Am claim 6: novel, in view of the dependencies of amended claim 6, the broadest version of amended claim 6 is the combination of claims 4 + 6, And D3 does not disclose the cement. See Q3.

Am claim 7: novel, no carbon fibres disclosed in D3

 

Q13: The applicant considers filing another amended independent claim with the following wording:

A construction element for a building, the construction element comprising:
a reinforcement structure comprising carbon fibres and glass fibres, and
a matrix, wherein
the reinforcement structure is embedded in the matrix.
Would such an amended claim be allowed by the examining division?

No – because this claim would violate Art. 123(2)/ The application as filed does not disclose the combination of glass + carbon, see first paragraph of page 2 of the description: “are either carbon fibres or glass fibres”

Note: I found this a bit of confusing question. Would this claim be filed in addition to other claims? If so, what is the question aiming at? R. 43(2)- issues? Conciseness? In the end it didn’t matter because there is a clear violation of Art. 123(2) EPC but the question got me a bit confused as it didn’t seem to give a clear indication in which direction to think.

 

Q14: The applicant may expect that the subject-matter of amended claim 2 was covered by search performed during the search phase?

No, not unitary with claim 1 as filed, and seems to be related to a non-working embodiment. In addition, it is broader than claim 1 as filed.

 

Q15: The applicant may expect that the subject-matter of amended claim 5 was covered by search performed during the search phase?

Yes, part of dependent claim, unitary with claim 1 (same invention)

 

March 02, 2026 Foundation 2026: first impressions?

To all who sat the F-paper today:

What are your first impressions with respect to this year’s F-paper? Any general or specific comments?

For example, what did you think about the level of the questions, was that suitable for a candidate having one year of work experience? Any difference in this respect between the leqal questions part and the claim analysis part? Did any unexpected topics come up?

Please be reminded that, if you wish to lodge a complaint pursuant to point I.9. of Instructions to Candidates EQE2026 concerning the conduct of the examination, you must do so at the latest by the end of the day on which the paper to which your complaint pertains takes place, by filling in the dedicated form on the EQE website. The Form for paper F is only available on 02.03.2026, 14:30 - 23:59, CET.

 

The paper and our answers

We aim to post our provisional answer in separate blog posts (one for Part 1 and one for Part 2) as soon as possible after we have received a copy of the paper, preferably in all three languages. Should you have a copy of at least a part of the paper, please send it to any of our tutors or to training@deltapatents.com.

Please be reminded that you can view and print/download  copy of your exam answer after the exam, via the view/download button below the "1. Paper"-icon in the bottom left part of the outer shell of the respective flow. It may not be available immediately after the official end of the (part of the) paper, it can take 30-60 minutes to appear. Note that the copy of the answer most likely will include the questions, but not any printable parts of Part 2.

 

 

Comments are welcome in any official EPO language, not just English. 

In order to make responding to your comments easier, please do not post your comments anonymously. You can use either your real name or a nickname. You do not need to log in or make an account - it is OK to just put your (nick) name at the end of your post.

Please post your comments as to first impressions and general remarks to this blog, and post responses to our answer (as soon as available) to the separate blog post with our answer.

We look forward to hearing from you!

March 02, 2026 Good luck with paper F 2026!

 

Our Paper F 2026 blog will open for comments shortly after the F-paper (so on 2 March 2026, shortly after 14:30)

We aim to post our provisional answers to the paper shortly after we have received a copy of the respective exam paper. Keep an eye out for further blog posts!

Do not post any comments as to the merits of the answers of a certain exam paper/flow on the blogs while an exam/flow is still ongoing. Also, do not post the invigilator password or anything else that may be considered the breach of the exam regulations, instructions to the candidates, code of conduct, etc (see, e.g.,  EQE homepage, MyEQE, and the emails from the EQE secretariat).

All candidates, as well as tutors who helped candidates prepare for EQE 2026, are invited to contribute to the discussions on our EQE blogs! You can post your comments in English, French or German. You are invited to post your comments under your real name, but it is also possible to use a nickname.

The DeltaPatents team

NB: you can’t comment to this blog post; comments will be accepted at the post-exam blog post as from 2 March 2026, 14:30).

April 16, 2025 F2025 - Examiner's Report available

 The Examiner's report (including the model solution) of paper F 2025 has been published in the compendium on the EPO website, see Paper F | epo.org.

For both parts, the pass threshold has been set at 70%, which means that you needed 35 points in part 1 to pass. In part 2, Question 10 (3 marks) has been neutralised, so the maximum possible score for Part 2 is 47 instead of 50. For a pass, you needed 33 points. You need to have a pass for both parts separately to pass the paper and be allowed to sit M1 and M2 in 2026. 

We noted that in Part 1 (and only in Part 1) in some of the questions you could have scored partial points if you did not answer all subquestions correctly. It appears that for the other questions it was "all or nothing", so if you answered one subquestion wrong you would get no points for the entire question. At this moment we don't know why these specific questions were selected to allow partial scoring. 

March 22, 2025 Foundation Paper 2025 - our provisional answers to the Claim Analysis Part (F-2)

 First of all, a big thank you to the candidates who send us the copies of the printable parts and of their answers (which included the questions)! There were no benchmarkers for F this year, and the paper wasn't published straight way, so we had to rely on you to get the paper. Thanks for helping out!

Roel, Joeri and I looked into the case of the claim analysis part. These are our answers (including explanation):

March 21, 2025 Foundation paper 2025 - our answers to F-1, legal part

Our (provisional) answers to the legal part of the Foundation 2025 paper are given below. (Our answers to the claims analysis part will be posted at a later moment, probably tomorrow, 22 March.)

 

As the sequence of the questions, as well as the sequence of statements/elements within a question, may have been different between different candidates, we numbered the questions and the statements for easy reference.

 

During the exam, candidates had access to the EPO Legal Text pages, so including the full EPC Articles and Rules, Guidelines (GL/EPO, GL/PCT-EPO), as well as to the PCT Articles and Rules and the PCT Applicant's Guide in the eGuide format. Access to the EPO text was to the live versions, so to the versions in force on 21 March 2025 (so not the version of 31.10.2024 acc REE/IPEE). The PCT texts were in the version in force on 31 October 2024.

 

Candidates could access the exam in all languages, English, French and German: the language of the question could be selected. All statements were given in all three languages.

 

Please feel invited to comment and share your thoughts!