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)
Thanks for these answers.
ReplyDeleteCan you please explain why question 13-2 is False ? According to GL G-VII 6, "the fact that more than one disclosure must be combined with the closest prior art in order to arrive at a combination of features may indicate that there is an inventive step". Is the answer "false" because the wording of the question was "Is it sufficient" ?
Because it is only an indicator, not a requirement. For example, if there are partial problems (two missing features that do not work synergistically), each could be disclosed in a separate document, both being obvious with the starting prior art. You would still need the prior art plus two documents, so it is not sufficient to claim that having more than two features automatically implies inventiveness. This is what is also hinted at with "Combination vs. juxtaposition or aggregation" within G‑VII, 6
DeleteI also don't understand. The statement was: "It is sufficient to argue that the combination of more than two documents implies that there is an inventive step."
DeleteIf I can argue that *the* combination of more than two documents (the particular combination of D1 with D2 and D3) *implies* that there is an inventive step, isn't it sufficient for the Examining Division?
If the statement was "It is sufficient to argue that any combination of more than two documents implies that there's an inventive step" I would agree with the answer here.
I put "False" for both statements of Q13 because of the "it is sufficient" language. I don't think it's possible to convince any examiner that the invention involves an inventive step just because more than two documents were cited in the attack, even if we don't consider the partial problems case. Usually one has to work out the whole problem-solution approach and argue accordingly. I think that the citation of more than two documents can be among the arguments, but I doubt it would be enough on its own...
DeleteI think Phil put it nicely too, the GL say such combination can be "an indicator" of inventive step, which is - by far - not a given.
I think Julia has put it nicely.
DeleteMore difficult than Paper F 2025, certainly, and the threshold should be lowered accordingly (~60-65 %), but at least this part was clear and solvable. It seems that most candidates are more likely to fail due to Part 2 than with Part 1.
ReplyDeleteI agree, thats the one we’re all probably more concerned about.
DeletePart 1 went so good for me, but I will likely fail due to cement-gate :-(.
DeleteLets hope for the best though
cement-gate hahaha
Deletesame here. Now just wait...
Delete@Diane and DP team: thanks very much for the answers and explanations!
Thank you so much for sharing!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the answers.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, for question 10, the Guidelines (E-IV, 1.2) clearly state that “If the testimony of a witness is offered, the opposition division may decide to hear this person.” The wording “may decide” shows that the opposition division has discretion and is not obliged to hear the witness. Therefore, it should not automatically be expected that the witness will be heard.
I guess the part in the question relating to "the testimony is relevant to the decision" is decisive here. But still, its not a given.
DeleteAbout Q10, whether the EPO must take up the offer: yes, I agree with you that the Guidelines don't explicitly mention that (I could not find it anywhere in E-IV), and even suggest otherwise.
DeleteHowever, in the commentary of A117, Visser states "A117(1) and A113(1) embody a basic procedural right to give evidence in an appropriate form and to have that evidence heard." Visser cites G2/21, specifically mentioning that "all appropriate offers of evidence made by the parties should be taken up by the EPO".
So maybe the question is beyond the scope of paper F syllabus because G2/21 doesn't seem to be cited in GL E-IV, but then on the other hand A113 is in scope.
If the EPO would refuse an offer to hear a witness, wouldn't it be a violation of the right to be heard of the party requesting that the EPO take evidence by hearing that witness? Perhaps just A113 is enough to get to the answer of the DP team... Not sure my reasoning is correct, though.
Good evening, is 3.1 not "true" since it says in the question description that "EP-B complies with all requirements of the EPC" so the date of filing which is accorded to EP-B is the date of priority, i.e. the date of filing of PR-B wherein you say "false, accorded date of filing is date when EP filing meets requirements of R.40(1) EPC" - the description already says all requirements are met.
ReplyDeleteI think what they mean is that Art. 89 EPC states that the priority date shall (only) count as the date of filing of the European patent application for the purposes of Art. 54 and Art. 60.
DeleteTherefore, it does not refer to Art. 80 EPC, which relates to R. 40 EPC.
Hi Phil, that still doesn't make sense though. The question says "all requirements of the EPC are met" and this is foundation level, so candidates must imagine that all requirements of the EPC are therefore met (which automatically includes R. 40(1)). There are no reference to any articles or rules, so the umbrella term here of "all requirements of the EPC are met" means that all requirements are met. Will be interesting to see what the official examiners report says.
DeleteHi Anonymous,
DeleteArt. 80 says "The date of filing of a European patent application shall be the date on which the requirements laid down in the Implementing Regulations are fulfilled."
So what are the relevant implementing regulations? That would be R. 40: "The date of filing of a European patent application shall be the date on which the documents filed by the applicant contain: (a) an indication that a European patent is sought; (b) information identifying the applicant or allowing the applicant to be contacted; and (c) a description or reference to a previously filed application."
This defines the "date of filing" purely in terms of when certain minimum documents are filed. Making a priority claim does not change the date on which these documents were filed.
Now, the EPC refers to the "date of filing" elsewhere in other articles and rules. Often this is required to refer to the date on which those documents were filed. Consider, for example, if the deadline for filing translations was set based on the priority date rather than the 'true' filing date. You'd have already missed the translation deadline by many months as soon as you filed your priority-claiming application, because its filing date would be up to 12 months before you actually sent the documents to the EPO.
However, there are some cases where we potentially need to refer to the priority date instead. We can't use "priority date" in the articles and rules because some applications don't claim priority. So, instead, we use "date of filing" and then create some special cases where we pretend the "date of filing" is the priority date for certain issues. Art. 89 gives those special cases: Art. 54 (determining the relevant cutoff date for the state of the art) and Art. 60 (deciding which of two independent inventors filed first). Using the priority date for these special cases still doesn't change the date on which the relevant documents were filed with the EPO, i.e. the "date of filing".
(As an aside, this is one area where the UK's implementation of the EPC makes things like this clearer in my opinion, if a bit more longwinded. Time periods, for example, are explicitly spelled out like this one from the UK's Rule 30: "(a) four years and six months beginning immediately after— (i) where there is no declared priority date, the date of filing of the application, or (ii) where there is a declared priority date, that date;")
Hi Tom, thank you for all this info. I'm aware of this but what I'm hung up on is the unclear wording in the Q saying "EP-B complies with all requirements of the EPC", if it had said e.g. "EP-B complies with all requirements of the EPC, apart from R.40(1)" it would instantly have been crystal clear what the answer should be. It's implicitly disclosed in the Q that R.40(1) is complied with, meaning that the documents filed by the applicant in this situation do contain: (a) an indication that a European patent is sought; (b) information identifying the applicant or allowing the applicant to be contacted; and (c) a description or reference to a previously filed application. Because yes the Q is about claiming priority which EP-B validly does from PR-B, but furthermore this sentence is added in the Q causing lack of clarity in the Q: "EP-B complies with all requirements of the EPC". If this sentence wasn't there then ofc the answer would've been clear like you are saying and I would agree
DeleteHey Anonymous,
Deleteit is unrelated to whether R40(1) was fulfilled; the addition “EP-B complies with all requirements of the EPC” serves to clarify the question of whether, in the case of a validly claimed priority, the filing date of EP-B is in all circumstances equivalent to the priority date. And, as explained above, this is not the case. If, as you suggest, the addition “apart from R40(1)” is used, there would be no application that could claim priority at all, and the question would be very unclear.
Lovely explanation Tom L. I can add nothing.
DeleteWhy do we need to pass both parts for paper F to proceed with the EQEs? During the pre-exam era they had "compensable fails" so that you could fail (40-50% score or something) but still proceed as you simply just had to make up for it in the later exams. I thought the new system was introduced to make the EQEs "easier" and encourage more people to join the profession. I want to encourage university students to consider a career in the patent profession as it can be really fun and I enjoy my job, but how can I not be honest about these dreadful exams they first must face that are unlike any other professional exams. The way it is now, the EQEs are almost a repellent to the profession. The "all or nothing" approach to marking is unusual and they contradict themselves when they say the new EQEs will be "easier" and will be fine for 1 YOE candidates - but the shadow of this is a brutal marking strategy and unclear questions.
ReplyDeleteAgreed-
DeleteYou are absolutely right
DeleteThis!!!
Delete100 %
DeleteThanks for your answers! Iam really confused about the level of „difficulty“ of Q9-5. I must admit that I did not took Part in and Delta Patents Course (just had the nice F book) and took the EPO Academy course instead… at no Point in the over more than 600 pages of modules and Knowledge there was nothing about this special agreement (please correct my point of view if I am wrong). However, I likely will fail Part 1 with a max. of 29 points at partial marks…
ReplyDeleteHi, je could find these answers in the annex B and C of the Netherlands of the PCT, which you could access in the lockdown browser
DeleteThe EPO-WIPO agreement is the true legal basis for why the EPO as ISA will search in Dutch for IAs filed at NPO in Dutch. You can also find this info in Annex D of the AG-IP for EP
DeleteHow did you calculate the partial marks?
ReplyDeleteJust some stupid assertion on my side to still have some infinitismal hope… I thought that they might half the points of a question with more than 4 sub-question. So for one wrong answer in Q9 I calculated just 2P.
DeleteThere is only one question with more than 4 sub answers… funny that with over 80% of right answers, as a % of the total sub- questions, it is still well below the 70% pass mark
DeleteSorry I meant more than 3... However, you are right!
DeleteThank you to Nyske and the DeltaPatents team for providing these answers.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, for me as a candidate under exam pressure, this Paper F was an unforgettable experience!
English is not my first language, so when I saw the Question 14 'Due at the end of' vs. 'within' one month distinction in Part 1, I got blocked. I know that a fee must be paid within one month and that the deadline is sharp; if asked straightforwardly, I would have given the textbook answer. Instead, I found myself struggling with linguistics rather than law. Under exam conditions, without the ability to verify a semantic nuance as one would in the real world, these games felt like they were testing vocabulary over EPC competency.
I'm off to reclaim my life with my family now (whom I barely saw over the last 8 weekends and evenings due to intensive exam preparation), but I hope our collective voices help push for a fair correction. Anyway, what a concrete experience!
Same for me. I just thought it said the same thing twice. 💀
DeleteAwful exam, marking and lack of transparency
ReplyDeleteThank you Deltapatents team for publishing the answers, thanks to your course I only made one small mistake in the partial priority question. I definitely had to search for some of the answers to check some exceptions but at least knew where to look! For part 2 I only missed points on the questions which are heavily under debate on the blog, so also there I am pretty sure I will have around 70% score and maybe higher with partial markings. Thanks for all the useful tips during the course and helping me out when I could not attend some lessons for personal reasons.
ReplyDeleteYou're most welcome!
DeleteI really think this part was absolutely straightforward. If one just focused on finding the legal basis for a particular statement, the answer could be straightforwardly found in the Articles Rules, GL or the PCT Annex. The only question that I got wrong was the EPO as ISA searching in Dutch, unfortunately this was hastily answered on my part. If I had been careful enough to find a legal basis for supporting my assumption, I would have gotten the point. Honestly, I do not think a 70% threshold without partial marking would be strict. But that's just my biased outlook, since I did well. I can imagine in the alternative where I didn't, I'd argue on the contrary...
ReplyDeleteThanks Diane and DP Team for the answers and explanations. @Diane, do you expect the passing threshold to be 70%? Do you think this was more difficult than last year's legal part?
Delete50% is unlikely due to statistical probability in a multiple-choice test. Compared with 2025, I would assume that 60%, combined with one or two cancellations and/or partial points, would be fair.
DeleteI think this year's exam was a bit more interesting than last year's. Partial priority and languages accepted by the EPO as ISA, for example, requires legal knowledge that will useful in later papers. I don't know if that it necessarily makes the paper more difficult.
DeleteI find questions about the legal structure of the EPO more difficult, as I really don't care.
But in any case, I have no clue what the passing threshold will be.
Both parts of paper F were very doable this year I'd say. A bit higher level than last year's paper F, but honestly only a couple of questions which made you pause in each part.
ReplyDeleteI don’t agree, because there is a real issue with the exam design. How can a single novelty question on one claim in view of one document determine whether you pass or fail?
DeleteIf original claim 2 is novel over D3, then all its dependent claims are also novel. The same should apply to amended claim 2 and its dependent claims.
Come on… you have to admit that’s a bit twisted.
In addition to the previous comment, how would you derive that especially part 2 was only "a bit" higher in difficulty?
DeletePaper 2025 gave 5 points for ordering the problem solution approach in the correct order.
Paper 2026 gave 5 points for tricky evaluation of multiple Art. 123(2) from non-verbatim disclosure.
Paper 2026 had multiple questions where DeltaPatents simply said it is tricky, can be interpreted otherwise, they are not sure, they needed to change the solution after consulting with the team and with the commenters.
Nothing of this can be found on the commentary of Paper 2025.
Further, cementgate. This one will be decisive for many people.
Thanks a lot DeltaPatents for your provisional answers to this year's paper F! It is great to know in advance if one may have passed the exam or not.
ReplyDeleteBoth papers are surely difficult than previous paper and some questions are very tricky. Specially, when a correct/incorrect answer of one is also a decisive factor for another questions. I would say it’s difficult for candidate with one year of experience. New format of paper F was designed to ease the exam structure and attract more candidates for EQE, but this format of 2026 is doing the reverse.
ReplyDeleteIsn't Q8-2 drafted a bit weirdly. They're not saying that the novelty objection was raised. Although novelty is a prerequisite to inventive step, so it would make sense in the context of an inventive step objection, it's not a prerequisite to sufficiency? Sure you can file amendments to a novelty objection that has been raised, but filing amendments to another "ground" of opposition that hasn't even been raised seems strange to me. The question says that sufficiency was the "sole ground" of the opposition filed. Wouldn't this just be a waste. What's the purpose of amending another ground of opposition if there is no issue with this. Are you not doing your client a disservice
ReplyDeleteSay you knew of a vulnerability that might be brought up in expensive validity proceedings later on?
DeleteThanks, yes that would make sense. However I don't think a candidate with 1 YOE would know this would be possible, at least I didn't know this. With 1 YOE you just draft claims and know the basics of what grounds of opposition exists, one haven't really developed strategic skills related to opposition amendments for future validity proceedings after 1 YOE.
DeleteYou just had to read R. 80 to find the answer. Not that difficult.
DeleteI think you will find the answer directly in rule 80
ReplyDelete