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!
Overall it was a good exam. Not as easy as the previous year, with a few tricky questions in both parts. In the first part there was a surprising number of questions related to opposition, as I would not expect many people get to work on this during their first years. The part 2 case was lighter than the ones from the pre-exam and the claims were quite easy to analyze.
ReplyDeleteThanks Lukas, good ro hear that it seems to have been a reasonable paper. I'm super curious about the questions now...
ReplyDeleteI found the first part difficult having only 1 year of experience! The second part was okay. Though, I had some difficulties answering, especially, parts with amended claims
ReplyDeleteI found it more difficult than last year's paper F! There were some tricky questions where they tested exceptions rather than common situations. I didn't expect topics like partial priority, limitation vs. opposition proceedings, language exceptions for filing PCT applications in dutch etc. in paper F. There were no very easy questions like last year where they simply asked for the amount of the opposition fee or to bring the steps of the problem solution approach in the correct order. I was surprised that they recycled last year's neutralized "dependent claim" question in the claim analysis part.
ReplyDeleteI found the legal part easy, with almost no ambiguity or room for interpretation in any of the questions, which is ought to be that way. The claim analysis was also okay, I was also suprised that last year's neutralized question made an appearance. Apart from a very obvious question on the closest prior art, there were no questions on inventive step. Compared to the legal part, I found the quality of questions in the claim analysis sub-par. The 4 prior art documents D1-D4 were taken together half a page -- with one document having a single statement. The level of the Foundation paper seems to be many levels below the pre-exams of yesteryears; strangely enough, I don't think the claim analysis should be a cakewalk like it was last year and was this year...
ReplyDeleteIs this really so weird? Paper F is supposed to require only 1 year of experience.
DeleteAll I mean is that they could strike a better balance between the level of difficulty of both papers. I sat the paper with 2 years of experience, so I will admit that my pespective may be skewed. For instance, the legal part could have been made a little bit easier and the claim analysis part could have been made a little bit more difficult. Even with one year of experience (which involves working with claims almost every day), I'd like to believe that everyone is well equipped to handle more challenging questions
ReplyDeleteOne more thing: I would prefer slightly higher level of difficulty in the paper than brutal marking schemes...
DeleteBoth parts were definitely much more difficult than Paper F 2025. The legal part was more harder compared to 2025, but still quite clear, although some special cases were asked about, as other commentators have mentioned (partial priority, limitation procedure, XN as ISA, Dutch as viable EPO-ISA language, whether the European Patent Office and the European Patent Organization are the same legal entity...).
ReplyDeleteThe english version was slightly easier to answer than the german one, as many terms could be found verbatim in the rules or GL.
Part 2, on the other hand, was brutally unfair in my opinion, especially since the german and english version slightly differed in meaning. While the description and prior art were fairly short, the disclosure of D3 was quite ambiguous in the context of the application description. As an example, D3 disclosed the general use of concrete, which according to the description “normally” contains cement. I'm not sure it's fair for first-year students to analyze whether “normally” falls under an implicit disclosure or not. Depending on the answer to this question of novelty analysis, the answer to the subsequent question on dependent claims changed. In other words, depending on your analysis of the independent claim of the first claim in relation to D3, you basically answered two questions correctly or incorrectly, which is not really fair given the scoring. One wrong answer immediately cost you ~8 out of 50 points.
Further, being a chemist, I do not agree with the question regarding "ultra-high molecular weight" PE, which from the description, would one assume to be a clear term, but in everyday scientific and patent law practice, is not. I had quite a few 94(3) where this term was determined to be unclear.
Lastly, basically the same question as Question 10 of Part 2 of Paper F 2025 was asked. However, that question in 2025 was cancelled without providing the answer per the Examiner report. I dont get why you would ask the very same question again.
Overall, I am somewhat disappointed about why the difficulty level was increased so much compared to 2025, but even more so about why the second part contained so many unclear and ambiguous questions.
I agree on the part concerning D3. In particular the German version was at least debatable concerning the terms used, as you already pointed out.
DeleteBoth parts were very predictable for me. No surprises. It felt like a standard application of the rules we've been drilling.
ReplyDeleteI found the L part much more difficult than last year’s F paper. It covered topics (such as limitation, hearing of witnesses, the EPO as the only ISA in Europe, etc.) that were not addressed in last year’s F paper and even not in at least the last five pre-exams.
ReplyDeleteI understand that declarative knowledge is being tested and that we are expected to be familiar with these topics. However, I didn’t expect to get confronted with so many questions related to topics that are not often being asked. These type of questions themselves were, however, doable. One could find the legal basis to most of them in the EPC articles and rules without needing to consult the Guidelines. With regard to the exam, I had expected more questions on priority, appeal, oppositions, more complex time-limit calculations, missing elements/parts, Euro-PCT, or similar issues. There was also one question that I didn’t expect for this year, which concerned the use of generic and specific terms in the subsequent and priority application.
I also felt that more time is needed to complete the exam compared to last year’s F paper and the previous pre-exams.
Regarding the claim analysis part, I found it more difficult than last year’s F paper. Although there were some questions which I found a bit confusing, I found this part overall more fitting to my expectations. I was also quite surprised that a question similar to last year’s F paper appeared again. In addition, inventive step felt very short. Most questions were focused on novelty and amendment. It was also interesting to see two questions concerning amendments concerning the searched subject-matter, which I initially struggled to get what they are asking.
I am excited about the results and especially the grading system.
I found question 9 in part 2 quite tricky. The first sub-question asks whether amended claim 1 meets the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.
ReplyDeleteAmended claim 1 defines:
"1. Textile structure in a building, wherein the textile structure is a woven fabric."
This seems to be supported by FIG. 2a and the last three paragraphs of the description.
However, on the first page, the description 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."
I answered that the amended claim 1 meets the requirements of Art. 123(2). My thinking was that "textile structure in a building" means essentially the same as "reinforcement structure embedded in the matrix". The term "matrix" is just defined as the material into which the reinforcement structure is embedded, so a building could also be a "matrix". Also, woven fabrics are made of fibre material, as defined in the last paragraph of the description.
Thus, in my opinion, the amended claim 1 includes the essential features of the invention as defined in the description. But I'm a bit uncertain, as the amended claim 1 lacks the word "embedded".