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...
DeleteYes.
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.
Deletei agree with everything you said. Further i would like to point out that if claims are massively unclear, it is intrinsicly impossible to determine their scope and hence also their conformity with 123(2) EPC and 54 EPC. I am quite disappointed on the ambiguous way Part 2 has been drafted, especially compared to the Mock Exam and Paper F 2025, where no room for ambiguous interpretation of subject-matter has been present
DeleteBoth parts were very predictable for me. No surprises. It felt like a standard application of the rules we've been drilling.
ReplyDeleteWow, you are so smart Mehrdad! How about we wait for the examiner's report and results? Don't forget to let us know in case you failed.
DeleteIt must be the ignorance of a complete rookie!
DeleteI 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".
The amended claim 1 is also supported by the original claim 6 as filed, which reads as follows:
Delete"6. A building comprising a construction element, wherein
the construction element comprises concrete, wherein
the building further comprises a textile structure."
Would you agree that IF claim 1 is added subject matter, then the claims that depend on it are automatically also contravening added subject matter requirements, as they do not add back in the deleted essential feature?
DeleteYes, I agree
DeleteBut isn't it an intermediate generalisation to omit the construction element that comprises concrete completely?
ReplyDeleteExactly what I thought. In my opinion the only basis for the building was original claim 6 related to that building. Now omitting a feature in which combination the building was claimed/disclosed before.
DeleteI agree with it is an unallowable intermediate generalisaiton. "1. Textile structure in a building, wherein the textile structure is a woven fabric." It comprise all the textile structure like carpet as defined in D1.
ReplyDeleteThe original claim 6 also covers all textile structures like the carpet in D1. The original claim 6 does not define any relationship between the construction element and the textile structure (except that they are both in a building).
DeleteAmended claim 1 omit the essential feature which is construction element which is stated in the original claim 6. The textile structure is disclosed throughout the application as filed only in combination with a construction element.
DeleteYes there is an unallowable intermediate generalisation for Q9. Legal part was fair, but claim analysis was a lot more challenging than last year - and I have 2 yrs experience. For example, D1 with an internet video can be seen as prior art but in this case the skilled person wouldn't be able to derive any technical teachings from the video related to the field of the invention (it just barely shows a concrete wall and a carpet) so it can't really be considered state of the art for the invention as a whole for Q1. If I had 1 yr experience I probably would've thought sure, any written or oral disclosure is state of the art. They gave so much information in the description that could've tested us on a variety of interesting topics within the patent profession, barely any of the info was relevant for the questions.
DeleteTo my understanding there is no limitation towards the subject-matter of a document which would make it part of or exclude it from the state of the art.
DeleteSee e.g. in GL G-IV 1: "The "state of the art" is defined as "everything made available to the public by means of a written or oral description, by use, or in any other way, before the date of filing of the European patent application"."
Article 54(2) states "The state of the art shall be held to comprise everything made available to the public by means of a written or oral description, by use, or in any other way, before the date of filing of the European patent application." So, since it is everything, also D1 should be state of the art. Maybe it is not useful to attack novelty or inventive step if it doesn't give an technical teaching, but in my opinion, it is still part of the prior art.
Delete"by means of a written or oral description", there was no written or oral disclosure in D1
Delete"or in any other way"
DeleteGL IV 6.1: "Availability to the public in any other way also includes all possibilities which technological progress may subsequently offer of making available the aspect of the prior art concerned" = what's the technological progress from D1?
DeleteThat is about "Availability to the public" which means whether the public are accessible. Even though it was difficult or impossible to access to the prior art before, after the technological progress, if it becomes accessible to the public, it is included in the concept of "availability". this is totally different content.
DeleteI also answered Q1 of the claim analysis part with "yes" because the question does not state whether the documents are relevant state of the art for the invention, it rather states "comprised in the state of the art under the EPC". But you got me thinking now...
ReplyDeleteI do agree, but the disclosure chosen really isn't that relevant to the field given how the video was originally an influencer showing how to remove a wallpaper and the wall happened to be seen in the video along with a carpet. State of the art must still be relevant to the invention, if not then absolutely everything on the planet would be state of the art in all sorts of contexts which would be messy when analysing the patentability of an invention. Even a video showing a wall at a far distance for a quick second could be state of the art? The video wasn't related to the technical invention. It's a very vague and borderline example to use in paper F, if they want to test us on whether we understand that a video can still be state of the art then I feel like they should've used a more clear and relevant example with some technical teaching e.g. the influencer talking about what the wall is made of etc. If it doesn't teach anything, how can it be state of the art. "Everything available to the public" must still be relevant
DeleteOriginal claim 6 recited: "6. A building comprising a construction element, wherein
Deletethe construction element comprises concrete, wherein
the building further comprises a textile structure." In my opinion D1 was relevant to claim 6
I also agree that D1 was relevant to the original claim 6. In my opinion, D1 actually destroys the novelty of the original claim 6, since D1 discloses concrete blocks (construction element) and a woven textile carpet (textile structure) in a building.
DeleteThere is no building disclosed in D1, it has "interior of a room with a blank wall", no wall in the present invention. Textile carpet might be different from textile structure
DeleteGL G-VI 2: "A document takes away the novelty of any claimed subject-matter derivable directly and unambiguously from it, including any features a skilled person would consider implicit in what is expressly mentioned in it."
DeleteD1 discloses a room with a wall made of concrete blocks, so it seems inevitable that the room is part of a building. Thus, I would say that the building is an implicit feature in D1.
A roof is needed for something to be defined as a building, and there is no roof disclosed in D1 - just a room with a wall and floor. We don't have more information than this so we can't assume and go beyond what is written. Although I also agree, and think that a roof would be inevitable in a room - we don't know if there is a roof because we are only reading a description of what is showed visually in the video and we can only examine this description. It could've been an open-air room, we don't know.
DeleteSorry, but I disagree. The following definition of a "room" applies, given the context of the application documents: a partitioned part of the inside of a building/a part of a building enclosed by walls, floor and ceiling. A room is inevitably in a building. Ergo, a room by definition is an enclosure in a building. The possibility of an "open-air" room relates to an adjective ("open air") exceptionally applied to a room. At this point, you can guess if you have to consider and ponder the meaning of a room, you are on the wrong track. I feel exasperated in justifying this; in fact I wrote during the exam on paper to think, "does D1 disclose a building?"and "is a room inevitably in a building?". As soon as I did that, common sense prevailed. I said sorry at the beginning, because this is just a long winded way to say - it does not help to overthink in exams related to the EQE, this is naturally beneficial for practice in everyday case load. The EQE is not a exam for training attorneys, it is an exam to check wehether you can jump through the EPC hoops. I do not think the Foundation claim analysis exam really tested understanding. In my opinion, t is an abject failure on the part of the people who set the exam. I also sense the silence from the Delta Patents Tutors speaks volumes, the fact that they take longer than usual is a pointer to the obfuscation present, at least, in the claim analysis part.
DeleteA room is not inevitably in a building, a room can also be inside a container, a room in a boat, a room in an airplane etc - it’s not limited to buildings. This is not overthinking. The application documents give no definition of either what a building or room entails.
DeleteI am sorry, but have you ever seen a brick wall on a boat or on an airplane?
DeleteBrick walls haven't been disclosed anywhere in the exam, but referring to the conventional concrete blocks in D1 then there are boats and water tanks (ferrocement) made of these construction elements, possibly other transportation means etc comprising such elements in their composition as well. Our task would be to simply check if features are present or not, and a building is not in D1.
DeleteD1 discloses a room with a blank wall. The wall is made of conventional concrete blocks. The wall itself can be interpreted as a building.
DeleteA building is an enclosed structure with a roof, walls and often windows, usually standing permanently in one place. "The interior of a room with a blank wall", "a wall made of conventional concrete blocks" "the floor of the room" is suggested in D1.
DeleteWondering if a room implies a building and whether a building has to have a roof when interpreting a hypothetical influencer video showing how to remove wallpapers is not how I imagined my professional feature when I finished my PhD. This discussion made me rethink my professional choices. 😂
Delete*future. Muscle memory of typing feature over and over again...
DeleteI’m sorry, Anomymous, but what about airplanes? Have you ever seen an airplane with a concrete wall
DeleteI think that this year’s Paper F was much more difficult than last year’s exam — by far. The legal part was acceptable, although many unexpected and rather unusual questions came up instead of focusing on topics that are much more relevant to our daily practice. Still, it was manageable.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the second part was far worse. I do not think it was fair. There were far too many questions on novelty and almost no assessment of inventive step. I am very disappointed. I just hope that most candidates felt the same way.
Also re D1- in accordance with Art54(2), all the state of the art, and so also that disclosed accidentally, must be taken into consideration when assessing novelty (T1170/19). To me this mades D1 relevant for assessing novelty.
ReplyDelete"In T 161/82 (OJ 1984, 551) the board found that the prior art document was concerned with the solution of a problem totally different from that stated in the application at issue and concluded that in cases where an anticipation was of a chance nature, in that what was disclosed in a prior document could accidentally fall within the wording of a claim to be examined for novelty without there being a common technical problem, a particularly careful comparison had to be made between what could fairly be considered to fall within the wording of the claim and what was effectively shown in the document (see also T 986/91)."
DeleteT 161/82 (OJ 1984, 551) concerns art. 56, not art.54
DeleteQ1 didn't ask if it was comprised in the state of the art under art54, just if it was comprised in the state of the art under the EPC which therefore also includes art56
DeleteIf I am not mistaken, T161/82 refers to the interpretation of the disclosure. The fact, that this document is part of the prior art in the first place, is a prerequisite for this.
DeleteAlso, not saying that this couldn't be an approach to get the question omitted, but if you have to look for a T-decision to support your answer, it's most likely not the answer the people drafting paper F was looking for.
I also remember reading somewhere that candidates are not supposed to chase exceptions or look for rare instances in interpreting the question. I do not question the unclarity of the question, it IS unclear, but I think the question was directed at simply testing whether candidates recognise that a video can also be considered state of the art. The nature of the information related to D1 is lamentable, I wish the people drafting the paper had exercised better judgement and included a better pointer to definitely answering this question...
DeleteMy feeling about this year's Paper F is that the level was higher compared to last year's. Part 1 was a bit harder, with tricky questions, but it was doable. On the other hand, Part 2 was much more difficult this year. I was not under the impression that the level of difficulty corresponded with one year's practice required for sitting Paper F. It would be very desirable that this difference in difficulty is taken into account when establishing the threshold score in the test results.
ReplyDeleteI can only agree with the second part and sincerely hope that this exam was designed with a 50% threshold in mind. Having completed all pre-EQE exams under examination conditions for preparation, the claim analysis part of this paper did not even feel like pre-EQE level, even though the application and the prior art were comparatively short.
ReplyDeleteCompared with Paper F 2025, which required simple stuff such as outlining the general sequence of the problem-solution approach, applying the same 70% threshold here would, in my view, be simply unjust.
If the Examiners decide to keep Question 8 valid, I sincerely hope they provide an explanation why it was cancelled in 2025 and suddenly legit in 2026. Because else, this seems unprofessional.
I also agree on the clarity of "ultrahighmolecular PE". This statement is unfair for chemists, as it goes against well-known chemistry knowledge and EPO practice.
Pretty sure the question regarding "ultrahighmolecular PE" was with GL F IV 4.6.1 in mind, which uses "high-frequency" in relation to an amplifier as an example for a clear term. However, this is not comparable to ultrahighmolecular PE.
DeleteOne would hope that the Examiners do not want to establish the precedence that if any applicant simply claims a term to be clear, that it must actually be considered a clear term for all persons. For a skilled person, ultrahighmolecular PE is simply unclear.
We can only hope that Paper F 2025 and 2026 are benchmarked against each other and that the threshold is reduced significantly.
Unfortunately, it does not matter whether this term is clear for a candidate based on their knowledge of the field, as in R21 IPREE: General instructions for answering the papers (...) (3) Candidates must accept the facts given in the examination paper and limit themselves to those facts. Whether and to what extent those facts are used is the responsibility of each candidate. Candidates must not use any special knowledge they may have of the technical field of the invention.
DeleteThe description stated unambiguously that it is a clear (known) term.
Whether this rule makes or doesn't make sense (or is fair) is another question.
Why are most people commenting as Anonymous, despite the clear indication in Delta Patents' post to not do so, it ain't that hard to pick a name!
ReplyDeleteSorry for that. You are right
DeleteMust say, it really gets my goat, to see all these Anonymous-es. People, be creative, the EQE examination committee is certainly quite creative with how they play with our futures - that's my concrete assessment!
DeleteDoes anyone know if/when the provisional results be released by Delta?
ReplyDeleteDid someone already send the 2026 paper F questions to Delta Patents?
DeleteYes, they have it. The info I got after asking by email is that they will post the provisional answers "most likely by Wednesday at the latest".
DeleteD1 should be voided for the marking!
ReplyDeleteDon't worry, they will manipulate the scoring system in some obscure and arbitrary way to get the proportion of passing scores as needed to avoid failing too many people instead of actually testing minim requirements. 🤡🤡🤡
DeleteIf that were not the case as at the moment, in a normal transparent system, they would have published the examiner's report and marking scheme right away after holding EQE. Surely, the questions asked in this year's EQE cannot be a surprise to EPO.
I had a real moment of panic during the exam. I was using the allowed Ctrl+F function on the legal texts, and all of a sudden I was kicked out of the flow system. I had to call the exam secretariat for help. Fortunately, they understood what had happened and helped me get back into the flow. Even so, I lost a valuable ten minutes in Part 1 because of it. It was a very stressful situation, and it is not something I would ever want to go through again.
ReplyDeleteApart from that incident, I felt that the exam overall was more difficult than last year and also more difficult than the mock paper. Part 2 in particular felt more challenging.
Well said Robin!
ReplyDeleteBoth parts of this year’s exam were clearly more difficult than Paper F 2025.
ReplyDeletePart L was noticeably harder than in 2025, although the questions were generally clear and based on the EPC. A number of rather specific or less frequently examined topics were tested, including partial priority, limitation procedure, Dutch as an admissible EPO-ISA language, and the distinction between the European Patent Office and the European Patent Organisation as legal entities. While the relevant provisions could usually be found directly in the Articles and Rules, the breadth and specificity of topics were unexpected.
Part 2 (claim analysis) was also significantly more challenging than in 2025. Although some questions were in line with expectations, the overall level of difficulty was higher. I had expected declarative knowledge to be tested under Article 123(2) EPC through more "standard issues", such as ranges, disclaimers, or deletions from lists. Instead, some rather unusual questions were asked that went beyond typical declarative knowledge, and for which the Guidelines provided little practical assistance. For certain question sets, an incorrect answer to an initial question effectively predetermined the outcome of subsequent questions, resulting in the loss of a significant number of points.
Overall, this year’s paper was broader in scope, more time-pressured, and considerably more demanding than Paper F 2025.
Great summary +1
ReplyDeletePart 1 seemed relatively straightforward to me. However, Part 2 came as a real surprise. I was struck by how many of the questions depended heavily on the interpretation of specific terms and/or implicitly disclosed features, leaving significant room for discussion.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the novelty of original claim 2 in view of D3 could, in my opinion, reasonably be argued either positively or negatively, depending on how one interprets the disclosure of that document. Failing on the novelty of claim 2 would necessarily have led to failing on the novelty of claims 3-5 as well, effectively impacting two separate questions.
Completely agreed! The disclosure of 'concrete' seemed subjective to me. I went with claim 2 being not novel in view of D3. However I'm now probably 80% sure that's wrong now in view of D3 not explicitly disclosing 'cement'. What did you go with?
DeleteI also concluded that claim 2 was not novel, and other colleagues from my firm also reached that conclusion.
DeleteI also answered that the original claim 2 is not novel over D3, since the description teaches that concrete normally comprises cement. But after reading the comments here, I thought about it more and realized that ”normally” is not the same as ”always”. Thus, I am not sure anymore which answer is correct.
DeleteI found the legal part appropriate for 1 year of experience, as it really was not that difficult. Although there were quite a few questions related to "remote" topics as mentioned in the comment above from XYZ, the answer to those could be found in the EPC in most cases, so looking into the guidelines was not even necessary.
ReplyDeleteThe claim analysis part, however, was in my opinion significantly more complicated compared to last years F-paper, and also compared to the pre-exams. I solve all pre-exams since 2019 under examination conditions, and in the pre-exams there was in almost all cases a clear hint in the description and/or claims which gave the answer. In this years claim analysis, however, there were quite a few (implicit) assumptions made / not made (depending what the true answer from the examination committee will be), which were not clearly derivable by the description (for example: does concrete implicitly disclose cement? at least based on the German version of the description, this is not fully clear).
All in all, I am positive regarding the outcome, but nevertheless, I believe the exam was significantly more difficult compared to last years, especially regarding the claim analysis part.