Foundation 2025: first impressions?
To all who sat the F-paper today:
What are your first impressions with respect to this very first F-paper? Any
general or specific comments?
What did you think about the level
of the questions, was that suitable for a candidate having one year of
work experience? Were the questions easier than in the pre-exams? Or at the
same level, or even harder in any way? Any difference in this respect between
the leqal questions part and the claim analysis part?
Did you have enough time? Did you
experience time pressure? Did you have enough time to double check your
answers?
Were the question formats as you
expected? Any unusual ones? Was it clear what you had to do to answer, e.g.
whether you had the option to tick multiple boxes or that you had to select a
single box? Were the questions clearly formulated? Were the answer options
clearly formulated? How did you experience the fact that you have different
questions formats and a different number of subquestions per question?
In the legal part, F-1, could you answer
the questions directly from the EPC/PCT, or did you need multiple steps in your
thinking to get to the answer? How was the balance between EPC and PCT? Were
there any unexpected topics? Any of the more “exotic” topics that you may not
have seen (yet) in your daily work?
In the claim analysis part, F-2, how was
the amount time you needed for reading description and prior art? Were there
any unexpected topics? Any of the more “exotic” topics that you may not have
seen (yet) in your daily work?
Did you take the exam from your home
or your office? Or somewhere else? How did that work for you?
Did you experience any technical
difficulties during the exam? How and how fast were they resolved? Did you use
the widget to contact the invigilator?
Please be reminded that, if you wish to lodge a complaint pursuant to point I.8. of the Instructions to Candidates concerning the conduct of the examination , you must do so at the latest by the end of the day on which the Foundation paper took place (so by 21.03.2025, 23:59 CET at the latest), by filling in the dedicated form on the EQE website (section "EQE online") and submitting that before midnight. (See also Amended Rule 19(3) IPREE as in force since 5 Feb 2025).
The Complaint form concerning the conduct of the examination (Paper F 2025) is (only) available on 21.03.2025, 10:00 - 23:59, CET.
The Complaint form guides you with detailed fields along the required information:
- Of course you need to give your name and EQE regnr.
- Indicate whether the complaint may relate to Part F-1, Part F-2 or both parts.
- You need to indicate whether you have you followed the instructions / recommendations from Wiseflow, whether you practiced in the "EQE-Compendium" area in WISEflow, whether you participated in either of the EQE technical tests (23.01.2025 or 18.02.2025), and whether you sat the EQE in the same environment and using the same equipment as for the technical test(s)?
- If your complaint relates to technical issues, you need to provide details about your setup. You need to describe the issue you experienced and how this affected your participation in the examination as detailed as possible.
- You need to describe the non-technical issue if you wish to raise it as part of your complaint. Complaints cannot be considered if based on sickness during the exam.
- You will also need to specify what compensation you request.
- Finally, you need to certify that the information given above is, to the best of your knowledge, true and correct.
The paper and our answers
We aim to post the core our (provisional) answer shortly after the exam in
separate blog posts (one for F-1 legal questions and one for F-2 claim analysis), 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 (e.g
printable parts of F-2, or maybe your downloaded answer also contains the
questions or a part thereof), 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 eye
below the "1. Paper"-icon in the bottom left part of the flow window
of the respective flow. (It may not be available immediately after the official
end of the (part of the) paper, but only 30-60 minutes later.) Apart from the
pre-printable parts, the paper itself cannot be downloaded.
We look forward to your comments!
Comments are welcome in any official
EPO language, not just English. So, comments in German and
French are also very welcome!
Please do not post your comments
anonymously - it is allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather
clumsy ("Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 20-03-2025 15:03"), whereas
using your real name or a pseudonym is more personal, more interesting and
makes a more attractive conversation. 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.
Please post responses to our answer (as soon as available) to the separate blog
post with our answer. Thanks!
Claims analysis way too easy. Legal part a bit more tricky but double! Happy with my performance!
ReplyDeletePlease do not post your comments anonymously - it is allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather clumsy ("Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 20-03-2025 15:03"), whereas using your real name or a pseudonym is more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation. 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.
DeleteWould agree on that
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous of 21 March 2025 at 15:26, please use a name or nickname -- see above.
DeleteThe English pre-printable materials for the Claims Analysis part did not contain the claims (original or amended). I'm not sure if this was deliberate. They were available in document in the lockdown browser though (albeit unprintable); it just threw me when the first question referenced claims that I couldn't see before clicking on the PDF attached to the question. Otherwise, the Claims part seemed quite simple, which makes me worry I have missed some nuances - I have been confidently wrong on some questions before!
ReplyDeleteThe Legal Questions seemed much more difficult than the mock exam for paper F and I think this will be exacerbated by the marking scheme (if I understand it correctly). It will be very easy to lose a large number of marks on questions with multiple sub-questions by getting only a couple of tricky sub-questions wrong.
As for the Pre-Exams, the Schedule document (https://link.epo.org/elearning/Schedule_EQE2025_EN) indicated that the description of the invention was pre-printable as well as the prior art, but it did not mention that the claims were as well. So one could expect that only the description would be pre-printable but not the claims - as for the Pre-Exams.
DeleteThe marking scheme of questions with multiple subquestions is a mystery still… we as tutors have asked the EQE organisation to provide that for the mock, but it was never provided. So we have to assume that the marking of the various types of questions will be well-balanced by their design. Note that the number of available marks per question is fixed - they can however adapt the pass level to adjust to some extent to unexpected effects (eg, if a question would be neutralized due to an error in the question or its translations and all candidate get full marks “for free”, the pass level can be increased to prevent an artificially high pass rate).
DeleteWill this have different pass level for F-1 (lower, as more difficult) than F-2 (higher, as less difficult)?
DeleteIs there a target pass rate that drives pass level?
AG
@AG: we (tutors) do not know, to both questions.
DeleteWe also have not yet seen the papers, so we do not yet know whether ee share your opinion on (difference in) difficulty ;)
The questions were ok, but i struggled with the system. I do not understand why they moved away from the 4-subquestion format from the preexamination.
ReplyDeleteAG
First of all: Thanks for this blog! Next to the eye, where you post says, that we should be able to view/download our exam answers after the exam, it still says "not accessible after submission". Am I the only one, is it an error in the system, will it still take a while, or is it maybe generally not possible for this paper to access the answers after submission? Besides the fact that I would really like to be able to see my answers again, I am also starting to get a bit worried, especially wondering if that means something might have gone wrong with my submission.
ReplyDeleteIt's the same here so I think it is indeed generally not possible to access the answers after submission.
DeleteThat is a pity. With the Pre-Exam, the eye allowed to see your answers about 30 min after the end of the last flow - that was also the case for the ABCD papers this and last week. So we expected/hoped that that would be the same for the Foundation Paper.
DeleteWhether they come a bit available later, or not in the coming hours, we will need to see...
Unfortunately there was no benchmarking possibility for the Foundation paper (for the main exam papers, 5 tutors sit the exam together with the candidates), so that no tutor has seen the exam yet...
Sometimes it takes a little while for your answers to be downloadable. Have you tried refreshing the page? That might help
DeleteIt is viewable now, but not downloadable... I'll send screenshots via mail
DeleteThanks Lucas!
DeleteAnswers are now viewable in WISEflow but not downloadable.
DeleteI have submitted the questions for F2 57 minutes from the start of the flow, (so not waited for the 60 minutes from the start) do you expect there will be consequences? Indeed part F2 seemed quite easy while part F1 unnecessarily ambiguous for some questions.
ReplyDeleteI didn't think you could submit before 60 minutes tbh, but I agree - I was done in 45 mins and sat waiting for the clock to tick down.
Delete@G.R.: Instructions to the candidates, V.6: "Within the first 60 minutes of any flow, candidates must not close the lockdown browser, leave the room or leave the camera's field of view, irrespective of whether they wish to submit their answers or end the examination" allows (in my oinion) to submit within the first 60 minutes as long as you -essentially- are within the active camera's field of view so that the (AI or human) invigilator can see you and can see that you are not cheating.
DeleteNow I am worried because I have submitted and left before 60 minutes. The submit button was available and I got no warning.
DeleteI got a bit worried too, I submitted F2 after 56 minutes and left the lock down browser.
DeleteAA.
I also submitted before the 60 mins because I forgot about this sentence.
DeleteI submitted before the 60 minutes too...did not know this was a rule
DeleteAs somebody else alluded to, the pre-printable materials (in all languages) for the claims analysis part did not contain the claims. Instead of being provided above the questions within the wiseflow HTML text as they have been previously, they were provided as separate and unprintable .pdf documents accessible from within the questions.
ReplyDeleteThis was extremely disappointing, because it deprives candidates with accessibility requirements of the ability to use wiseflow in-built accessibility features (text enlargement, coloured text/background and highlighting). I can't help but think that this was an oversight on the Examination Board's part. Either claims should be provided in printable .pdf for highlighting on paper or within the wiseflow HTML.
Regarding difficulty, the legal part was far too easy and pitched at too low a level, even for candidates with only one year's professional experience. It is not a suitable preparation for paper M1/M2.
The claims analysis part was not particularly difficult, the problem was that it was deliberately pitched at such a low level, the wording of the prior art disclosures was simplistic to the point of creating confusion. D4 for example was described as disclosing a bicycle comprising a frame... It was then stated that D4 ''suggests'' to replace the heavy steel frame with a titanium frame. It is not clear from the disclosure as described whether or not a titanium frame is disclosed within the content of a single embodiment, which important for a proper consideration of novelty.
@John: did you consider then legal part much easier than the mock, or close?
DeleteWhat I consider strange in the prior art, is that it is not clear whether the prior art documents are given, or whether it rather shows descriptions of the prior art -- the uncommon way may be confusing (even when considering Rule 21(3) New IPREE). E.g., compare:
"D3
Prior art published 1997
A big truck is shown with steering wheel, pedals controlling an engine for propulsion, seats and
wheels.
The structural parts of heavy trucks are traditionally made from steel alloys. It has been found that
significant weight reduction is possible by employing an aluminium alloy for the frame of the truck."
--> seems to be the D3 document as such, with a date stamp, so seems to be the actual text of D3
"D4
European patent application filed 15.7.2023 and published 15.1.2025. D4 is presently pending.
D4 discloses a bicycle, comprising a frame, two wheels, a saddle, handlebars for steering and
pedals for propulsion. D4 sets out that bicycle frames of steel alloys are traditionally very heavy.
Especially for competition purposes. D4 suggests to replace the heavy steel frame with a titanium
alloy frame with a density of 4.5."
--> seems to be a description of what is in D4, but w e do not have the actual text of D4.
@John Smith, I fully agree, especially regarding D4. I don't see the advantage of providing this indirect version of a prior art document, rather than the "original" document. It seems it can only lead to unnecessary confusion about what is actually disclosed. This was especially annyoing, because the interpretation of D4 was relevant to multiple questions.
DeleteK
@Roel van Woudenberg - I would say that the legal part was pitched at a similar level to the mock. There was notably a recycling of parts of some questions from old pre-EQE papers - the questions relating to constitution of the first instance departments for example.
DeleteP.s. thanks for your contributions to this blog.
@Roel van Woudenberg and @K, I am glad I am not the only one who was confused. Depending on what line you took on whether D4 was novelty destroying or not, will have a pretty big impact on candidate marks. ''Suggests'' denotes to me a reference to a teaching away, more relevant to consideration of inventive step, than a clear disclosure of a bicycle with a titanium frame relevant to a consideration of novelty. D4 was of course Art. 54(3) art and could not be taken into account for IS. Given the level that the other questions were pitched at, it is my assumption that the intention of the question setter was to convey that D4 did disclose a bicycle comprising a titanium frame. I could be totally wrong however...
Funny - I thought Part 1 was way easier than Part 2. Part 2 had some really easy questions for sure, but some were actually tricky!
ReplyDeleteI agree that the legal part was easier than the claim analysis. Regarding the latter, I found some questions on compliance with Art. 84 EPC particularly tricky.
ReplyDeleteI also have some doubts about whether claim 4 was erroneously dependent on claim 3 instead of claim 2.
Furthermore, I was wondering why they highlighted that D4 was filed before our patent application but published afterward, given that none of the questions specifically addressed inventive step or D4 itself..
I considered that claim 4 was not compliant with A84 because of its dependency to claim 3 and I agree for D4, weird that we could only choose between D1 and D2 for the closest document
DeleteD4 was 54(3) so could not used for inventive step and this could not be CPA. I would have expected that they tested that l when i saw there was a 54(3), but for some reason they did not do that. And to make a truck (D3) prior art for a bicycle… So they make a clean test: is the type or product (D1) or a feature (material; D2) relevant.
DeleteIs "are merely a repetition" the same as "are a mere repetition"?
ReplyDeleteI spent 5 minutes to look for possible difference.
REP
Does anyone know when the results will be out? Thanks!
ReplyDeleteInterested in that as well. Do the results come via mail or in wiseflow?
Delete@Ana: no, not known. For the Pre-Exam, It varied from 3-4 weeks to 7 weeks or so. I assume it depends on whether there are complications such as many complaints, discussions in the committee and/or EB on neutralisations, irregularities and agenda’s for meetings of the EB.
DeleteIt may take longer for the Foundation paper as the Examination Board also needs to establish the pass levels for each of the two parts and they can only do that once the have input needed to do so.
DeleteFirst impressions:
ReplyDeleteI don't want to say it before seeing the results but it seemed way easier than previous pre-EQE and shorter, mostly for the F2 that had very few questions.
I had enough time to go through everything again to double-check for both
For the F2 it felt like there was a part missing, some topics have not been touched on: no 123(3) questions, barely any questions on the inventive step, no use of the A54(3) document...
The format of the questions and answers was clear (although I prefer the old format)
There was not many PCT questions
The documents in F2 are available about 15minutes before the begining and they were short so it was possible to read them before the start
I did the exam at home with a computer from work (a laptop connected to a screen through a hub(?)) and had no technical issue.
I am working in the field since 2 years ( very small firm of 2 attorneys in a rather urban area). I prepared for the paper within one week (but heavily though) finding it surprisingly easy, so I am afraid I missed something (or a lot). No technical issues at all.
ReplyDeleteI think overall the legal part was tricker and the claim analysis a little ambiguous. Anyone also find the last question of the claim analysis part slightly ambiguous?
ReplyDeleteI was surprises that they tested novelty (and other aspects) of claims with a clarity problem. Why such complication and not simply having included (undoubtly) clear claims for novelty etc?
DeleteOur (provisional) answers to D-1, the legal part, are now available on a dedicated blog post:
ReplyDeletehttps://eqe-foundation.blogspot.com/2025/03/foundation-paper-2025-our-answers-to-f.html
Our answers to F-2, the claims analysis part, will follow at a later moment, but not anymore this evening - we also need some sleep! ;)
Thank you for working on the answers so quickly!
DeleteAlso our answers to F-2, the claims part, are available now:
ReplyDeletehttps://eqe-foundation.blogspot.com/2025/03/foundation-paper-2025-our-provisional.html