Tutors’ report on the EQE 2024 Papers and the Meeting between Tutors and EQE Committees

N. Cordes (NL), L. Ferreira (PT), A. Valborg Guðmundsdóttir (IS), A. Hards (DE), H. Marsman (NL), Z. Pintz (HU), N. Blokhuis (NL), R. van Woudenberg (NL)


Each year in autumn, the European Patent Academy of the EPO and epi arrange a meeting of EQE tutors and members of the EQE Committees, usually referred to as “the Tutor Meeting”. The goals are to discuss last year’s papers, to improve future EQE’s by openly exchanging ideas and to help tutors prepare candidates for next year’s exam.

The Examination Board has kindly given the tutors permission to publish their own report of the important points so that candidates can more easily find this information. In addition, the comments can greatly assist when reading and interpreting the official Examiners’ Reports. The Tutors’ Report appears each year in the last edition of epi Information.

This year’s meeting was again held by videoconference, in the mornings of 22 and 23 October 2024. On the first day, EQE 2024 General matters, an Outlook to the New EQE, Paper F (of the New EQE), and Papers C and D were discussed; on the second day, Papers A and B followed by Discussion, summary and closing.

The online format used unfortunately did not allow to see how many people were attending, and who were in the meeting. As expressed during the meeting by several tutors via video or the chat, an in-person or hybrid format is preferred and is essential to have the tutor meeting meet its goals. The lack of social, informal moments due to the online format is felt. We wish and look forward to having the 2025 Tutor Meeting again in person at the EPO in Munich or The Hague!

This year, the Academy allowed tutors to submit questions to the exam committees and the Examination Board via a dedicated form prior to the meeting (until 1 October 2024). Unfortunately only a few questions were submitted by just one or two tutors per exam paper, as in previous years when the questions could be submitted via email to the EQEW secretariat. Unfortunately, these questions were not distributed to all participants, so that not all participants were aware of the questions asked and the arguments presented therewith. During the meeting, additional questions were asked by voice, video or chat. Most questions were addressed by the Examination Board and the Committees in the General part of the meeting or when discussing the papers. The answers are incorporated in this report and can be used to supplement the information from the Examiners’ Reports.

This Tutors’ Report contains the following sections:

  1. Pass rates EQE 2024;
  2. The Online EQE 2024;
  3. General remarks from the Tutor Meeting;
  4. Paper A;
  5. Paper B;
  6. Paper C;
  7. Paper D;
  8. Pre-Exam;
  9. Outlook to the New EQE;
  10. Foundation paper of the New EQE, and
  11. Concluding remarks.

On behalf of the tutors present in the meeting, I would like to thank all the members of the Examination Board and Committees as well as the EQE Secretariat for their openness, for listening to our opinions and comments, and for providing their feedback thereto. This meeting is our yearly opportunity to learn from each other. My thanks also go to the tutors who asked questions and contributed to the discussions.

My special thanks to my co-authors – in alphabetical order – Nico Cordes, Luis Ferreira, Anna Valborg Guðmundsdóttir, Andrew Hards, Harrie Marsman, Zsofia Pintz and Roel van Woudenberg for finding time to prepare the individual paper summaries.

We all wish all candidates good luck in 2025,
Nyske Blokhuis (editor)


1) Pass rates EQE 2024

The official results for each paper of EQE 2024, as published on the EQE website and dated 17 July 2024 for EQE 2024, are shown in the table below:

Online EQE 2024 # Candidates PASS* COMP.FAIL FAIL**
Pre-Exam (4 x 70 min) 665 87,82% 12,18%
A (4 hours) 627 61,88% 6,70% 31,42%
B (3½ hours) 668 54,34% 11,38% 34,28%
C (2 x 3 hours) 824 39,81% 13,96% 46,24%
D (27+28+45 marks; 1h45 + 1h40 + 2h45) 807 55,64% 12,76% 31,60%

* note: These pass rates as published do not include the results of any appeals. It is not known whether/ how many appeals have been successful in interlocutory revision by the Examination Board or before the Disciplinary Board of Appeal or are still pending before the latter.

** The FAIL rate includes no-shows.

In 2024, 665 candidates sat the Pre-Exam, which is somewhat more than in 2023 (519) and similar as in 2022 (680) and 2021 (626) and significantly less than in 2019 (920) and 2018 (935). Of these 665 candidates, 584 (88%) passed the Pre-Exam. This pass-rate is comparable to that of the earlier papers which also contained two, concise cases/parts in the claims part (2023: 88% from 519; 2021: 87% from 626 candidates; 2019: 88% from 920 candidates; we discard 2022 due to its high degree of neutralization), and is somewhat higher than the typical pass rate for the 2015-2018 papers (74-76%; each 800-935 candidates) which each had a single and much longer claims part with much more reading.

463 out of all 1272 candidates that took at least one paper passed the EQE (compared to 690 out of 1630 in 2024, 885 out of 1918 in 2022 and 1093 out of 2780 in 2021). When comparing the results for the individual main exam papers with earlier years:

  • The pass rate for Paper A was in the usual (wide) range (2023: 70%, 2022: 60%, 2021: 74%, 2019: 79%.
  • The pass rate for paper B was on the low end of the usual range (2023: 62%, 2021: 55%, 2019: 53%, 2018: 73%, 2017: 67%) after it having been quite high in 2022 (78%).
  • The pass rate for paper C was lower than in the years before (2023: 54%, 2022: 49%, 2021: 47%, 2019: 50%).
  • The pass rate of paper D was relatively high compared to the usual range from before Covid (D 2023: 38%, D 2019: 49%, 2018: 33%, 2017: 39%, 2016: 42%), after having been artificially high in 2021 and 2022 due to significant neutralizations (2021: complete D1-1 of 25 marks; 2022: one D1 question of 5 marks).

2) The Online EQE 2024

In their “Information on the schedule for the EQE 2024 examination papers” communication of 27 July 2023, it was indicated how the exam papers and the schedule would be adapted for the online EQE 2024. The document provided that:

“The EQE 2024 will take place online using the examination software Wiseflow [comment from the editor: so, the same secure WISEflow/LockDown Browser as in 2021-2023]”. “The pre-examination and both papers C and D will be split into parts. This means that candidates will not be free to allocate their time as they see fit across the different parts of the papers. To compensate for this restriction, the total duration of the relevant papers has been extended. Once the time allowed for a part has elapsed, it will not be possible to go back to that part.”

“The pre-examination is split into four parts. Each part must be completed before the start of the next break, with the next only becoming available after the break. The pre-examination lasts four hours and forty minutes. Candidates will be allowed to print the description of the invention as well as the prior-art documents for the claim analysis parts before the start of the appropriate part. The documents allowed for printing will be made available during the break preceding the relevant claim analysis part.”

Paper D is split into three parts. Each part must be completed before the start of the next break, with the next part only becoming available after the break. Paper D lasts six hours. N o calendars will be provided.”

Paper A lasts four hours. Candidates will be allowed to print the prior-art documents and the drawings of the application, but not the letter of the applicant.”

Paper B lasts three hours and thirty minutes. Candidates will be allowed to print the prior-art documents and the drawing(s), but none of the following: the description and claims of the application, the EPO communication, the client’s letter and the amended claims..”

Paper C is split into two parts. The first part is to be completed before the break, with the second part only becoming available after the break. It will not be possible to go back to the first part after the break. Paper C lasts six hours. Candidates will be allowed to print everything except the claims of the patent in suit/opposed.”

The communication also included the start and end times of each (part of the) paper, and information about possible unscheduled breaks. The latter were only allowed for paper A, B, C part 1, C part 2, and D2, but not for the shorter parts (the four Pre-Exam parts and the two D1 parts).

For A, B and C, the communication also indicated that “The documents allowed for printing will be made available approximately ten minutes before the start of the examination”. Printing was only available before entering the respective exam flow, but not anymore after entering the flow in the secure environment.

Compared to the 2021-2023 exams, the most significant changes in the schedule were the different lengths of the D1.1, D1.2 and D2 parts for paper D.

The EQE website also provided further documents such as the REE/IPREE (OJ EPO 2019, Suppl 2) “Announcement of the European qualifying examination 2024”, the “Code of conduct for candidates during the EQE taking place online (e-EQE)”, “Instructions for answering the pre-examination paper and marking scheme” (Notice from the Examination Board), and “EQE 2024: Notification and time limit calculation”. The latter linked to a decision from the Supervisory Board dated 26 June 2023 indicating that, in view of the syllabus cut-off date for the EQE 2024 being 31 October 2023 and the Administrative Council having adopted amendments to Rules 126, 127 and 131 EPC for entry into force on 1 November 2023:

"1. Candidates sitting the EQE 2024 (pre-examination and main examination) can use as legal basis Rules 126, 127 and 131 EPC as in force on 31 October 2023 or Rules 126, 127 and 131 EPC as in force on 1 November 2023.

2. In the main exam papers, the default Rules 126, 127 and 131 EPC to be applied are those in force on 1 November 2023. If the candidate chooses to apply Rules 126, 127 and 131 EPC as in force on 31 October 2023, this must be clearly indicated.

3. Candidate papers will be marked accordingly."

WISEflow

EQE 2024 was again conducted online using the locked browser in the examination platform WISEflow. Reference is made to our Tutor’s report in epi Information 4/2023 for information about Wiseflow and the way it is used in the Online EQE.

Mock exams/ Compendium

The EQE secretariat made part of the Compendium available in Wiseflow. These included all main exam papers of 2021-2023, A 2019, B 2019, C 2014, D 2016 and Pre-Exam 2019 and 2021-2023 as well as mock main exam papers made by epi (the same mock papers as for e-EQE 2021). All enrolled candidates as well as any registered tutor had access to the Wiseflow Compendium.

The actual Online EQE 2024

The online exam took place from 4 – 14 March 2024 (Main Exam) and on 15 March 2024 (Pre-Exam). Compared to earlier years, the main exam papers were in the same sequences as before (D, A, B, C) with always at least one day in between two successive main exam papers.


3) General remarks from the Tutor Meeting

Opening words and general issues

The meeting was opened by Jakob Kofoed, chairman of the Examination Board, who first walked us through some of the key statistics of the EQE 2024. Apart from the basics, such as pass rate and number of enrolments, the procedure with respect to complaints and the procedure with respect to misconduct were discussed.

The number of complaints has increased with the eEQE. It is suspected that this is at least partly due to that it is now easier for candidates to file complaints. The complaints broadly fall into two categories: complaints with respect to technical issues (e.g. refreshing of a page taking too long), and complaints with respect to the papers themselves (e.g. paper being to lengthy). This year, a relatively large number of complaints was filed with respect to Paper B, but it was noted that the pass rate in 2024 for that paper did not deviate from what is normally to be expected.

It was stressed that each complaint is taken seriously, and is investigated on its merits. For example, the candidate’s Wiseflow logs are checked and evaluated in order to establish what exactly happened. Based on that, it is determined if and if so, how much, the candidate indeed was affected.

In addition, it was discussed that a few cases of misconduct were noticed and that in a total a number of 21 letters was sent out to candidates. In typical cases, the “misconduct” was related to things like wearing headphones during the exam or having a phone on the desk, candidates talking or leaving the room. If such conduct is noted during the exam, the candidate is contacted during the session and recordings are made. If the undesired behavior continues nevertheless, the candidate receives a letter after the exam to which they have to opportunity to respond. All candidates that got such a letter in 2024 have indeed responded. Their replies were discussed in relation to their individual results and it was decided whether or not marks were to be deducted.

It was stressed that all candidates should be familiar with the REE, IPREE, the Code of Conduct for the EQE and the Instructions to candidates concerning the conduct of the European qualifying examination. These can all be found on the EQE-page of the website of the EPO (https://www.epo.org/en/learning/eqe-epac/european-qualifying-examination-eqe). Appeals were discussed briefly. One appeal relating to the pre-exam led to a change in the marking. Of the 32 appeals relating to the main exam, 24 were referred to the Board. At the date of the tutor’s meeting, about 20 appeals were still pending.

New EQE

The main exam of EQE 2025 will still be according to the current format. Dates for EQE 2025 and EQE 2026 have been announced on the EQE website. Please refer the section on the New EQE below for more information.


4) Paper A – by

Andrew Hards (DE)
Anna Valborg Guðmundsdóttir (IS)

The A committee was introduced by Nicolas Favre (Chairman of EC I) and paper A was presented by main drafter Craig Watson who was part of the drafting team along with Michael Kelly and Gerald Rutsch.

Paper A of 2024 related to well-sealing devices which expelled glue to seal fractures in underground well walls. Previously, high-pressure containers were required to eject the liquid (glue), which poses safety risks. The invention describes a safe low-pressure device that leverages the natural well pressure to push out the liquid instead.

D1 described a device which deploys liquids in wells but consists of a simple setup requiring a high-pressure system with a gas chamber that drives a piston to expel the liquid. The device disclosed in D2 was similar to the device of the invention, with chambers and a piston mechanism, but the well pressure is used for a different purpose to drive fluid through a turbine for power generation.

The main challenges for the candidates this year were making a clear distinction between the device and the method claim. The client instructions provided two distinct hints towards providing a device claim as [006] stated “Please note, some of our competitors manufacture devices for wells in EU countries where there are no wells” and “We therefore want our patent application to seek to protect the device per se, not just the method of using it”.



Candidates who did not follow the client’s instructions, and claimed “in-use” conditions, such as the “glue” in the device, were restricting the scope of the device to only one type of liquid, leading to a deduction of 10 marks.

In any case, the device should not be limited to containing a liquid, as this is not a feature of the device per se. Likewise, the pressure difference between the outside well and the device container should not limit the device itself. This was penalized with 30 marks. The examination committee enforced their position on this as [013] stated “The exact pressures used are not so important, but in use we do need a pressure difference…”. This indicated that the pressure difference was necessary for the method claim but not the device claim, as the device on its own of course does not work on the surface; it needs to be in the high-pressure environment of a well.



To receive the full 40 marks for the independent device claim, essential structural features were required in the claim, i.e. the three chambers, a piston mechanism with a static disc, and exterior-connected valves, but without specifying use conditions. This secured a broad scope of protection for the device itself. The distinguishing feature over D2 was that the piston column extended through the static disk and sealed it respective the third gas-containing chamber. D2 showed a loose-fitting rod extending between the turbine blades for power generation, which allows depressurization, as no seal is present.

Out of the papers Mr. Watson marked, he did not find that many candidates used the 2-part form. There was however no penalty for this and if candidates did use it, this year, it was equally acceptable to start from either D1, which was closer in function or D2, which was closer in features.

The method claim could provide up to 15 marks and was mostly a copy-paste of the bullet points in [011] of the client’s letter, in addition to the pressure difference mentioned in [013] which was required for the device to function and expel liquids.

For the drafting of the dependent claims, up to 30 marks were available. The dependent claims further needed to follow the previously mentioned hints in [006]. A dependent method claim specifying the glue’s composition was highly valued by the client, with details including proportions of bisphenol A epoxy resin, sulfone polymer, and other additives, as well as specifying the weight-average molecular weight and ASTM measurement standards.

For the introductory part of the description a maximum of 15 marks could be obtained. This was divided into describing the two prior art documents, which gave 6 marks, discussing the technical problem to be solved, which gave 4 marks, and an explanation of how the invention solves the technical problem, which gave 5 marks, providing for a maximum of 15 marks.

It was noted that paper A this year, as well as last year, related to a technical field which leaned more to the mechanical side. The examination committee did make their intentions clear that their goal is always to achieve a balanced integration of both chemical and mechanical aspects in the paper, despite the inherent challenges in doing so. The pass rate of the paper was about 62 %, which is relatively low, but still in line with the pass rates of the last few years, which have ranged between 60 and 80%.


5) Paper B by

Luis Ferreira (PT)
Harrie Marsman (NL)

For Paper B, Wim van der Poel (EPO, Coordinator Examination Committee I and member of the Examination Board) informed the attendees that he would give the presentation on Paper B on behalf of the main author Josep Giménez Miralles. He thanked not only co-drafters Roberta Marani and Klaus Hof, but also made clear that there was a considerable number of persons involved in finalizing an examination paper.

Wim informed that the Paper had a pass rate of 54.34%, complemented by a compensable fail rate of 11.38%. Where Wim noted last year that the Committee “likes pass rates around 62%”, a percentage of 34.28% candidates failing this year seems quite high to us.

Paper B 2024 was directed to COVID-19 face masks and, in fact, some feedback was received expressing a dislike for being reminded of this unpleasant episode. Of course, this was not the purpose of the drafters of Paper B. It was simply intended to sketch a well recognizable background.

The presentation on Paper B closely followed the Examiners’ Report. Wim however stated that the Paper had multiple solutions, and actually some of these were only accepted after having received and read candidate’s answer papers.

In detail, Wim gave an overview of the Paper, shortly discussed the application as filed and the problems underlying it, the prior art, the official communication, and the client’s instructions and claims.

There were three prior art documents cited in the Communication, wherein D3 was a short Handbook providing some general knowledge on cellulose acetate, and to be used with D2. In addition, the client carried out some tests and the test method was detailed in a fourth document.

In the Communication, the Examiner indicated that D1 was novelty destroying for claims 1 and 2, and D2 for claims 1, 3, 5-7 and 10 as filed. Claim 8 was held not to involve an inventive step over D2. In respect of claims 4 and 11, a clarity objection was raised in view of the term “paper waste residues”. Like in previous years, the position taken by the Examiner was held to be correct.

Although the client limited claim 1 to the use of hemp, it was indicated that he wished protection for other natural fibres, as well. In addition, the client deleted the process claim (but asked if the representative had a better suggestion).

By limiting the face mask to one comprising at least one nanofilter layer comprising native cellulose nanofibers, the best defensible product claim was obtained. Wim observed in view of this claim that also without the nanofilter layer, novelty and inventive step could be accepted – and this was one of the insights gained from reviewing candidates’ solutions.

For the discussion on novelty over D1 and D2, candidates could get not less than 6 marks for each document, while the required argumentation was not particularly difficult.

A process claim could be maintained once the clarity objection was overcome – and that was not that difficult. No objection was raised against the clarity of claim 9, so that bringing the process steps of that claim in the process claim solved the clarity objection, while a lower limit for the use of gelatine was additionally required.

The process claim was not considered anticipated (nor obvious), and other than in previous years it was allowed to bring that as argument and candidates would get all available marks for novelty and inventive step.

For support in the application as filed, it was emphasized that reference to all supporting paragraphs and reasoning why the various supporting paragraphs could be combined resulted in a maximum number of marks.

As was the case with the previous single Papers B, the points for the claims are coupled to the amendments of the set of claims as suggested by the client.

It was intended that the closest prior art for inventive step in respect of claim 1 would be D2 (worth 30 marks) and that the problem to be solved was to obtain better breathing properties. For discussing inventive step, the test data could be used in line with G 2/21, because that technical effect was identified in the application as filed. Marks were available for referring to G 2/21.

Candidates could however also argue starting from D1 (24 marks), but then the test report was not necessary as the problem to be solved would be merely the provision of an alternative face mask (with adequate retention).

As said, some candidates even had other solutions that could attract points for all concepts tested. Regarding whether it would be beneficial to include other solutions in the Examiner’s Report, Nicolas Favre, Chair of EC I, explained that creating a comprehensive Examiner’s Report covering all acceptable answers would not have been straightforward. Instead, it was considered preferable to provide a single, instructive solution.

For the best solution the Examiners’ Report is, however, again quite detailed and should be read attentively. To our feeling, this Paper B was not that easy and not only because it needed a quite considerable reading time.


6) Paper C – by

Nyske Blokhuis (NL)

The C committee was represented by Paolo Provvisionato and Olaf Naumann.

The 2024 paper related to charging of electric cars, in particular using wireless charging.

Like in all eEQE-years, also in 2024 the C paper was split into two parts. This will remain so for the papers in 2025 and 2026. The word count between part 1 and part 2 was different from previous years, with a reduction of the number of words in Part 1. This helps to achieve a better balance in workload (i.e. time pressure) between the two parts, but due to a complex situation in relation to Annex 2 Part 1 still put many candidates under significant time pressure in Part 1.

The 2024 paper for the first time asked candidates to not just attack the claims as granted, but also to deal with a possible fallback position. The candidates had to figure out themselves what the fallback position would be, but in view of the initial attack on claim 1 that was not so hard to do.

Another new issue in the 2024 paper was that a priority document of one of the enclosed prior art documents had to be used to attack a claim. This priority document was not as such present in the set of documents that were given to the candidates. The candidates had to conclude themselves from the information given in the paper, in particular from the fact that the client’s letter mentioned that that priority document was published and when the publication took place, that the priority document of Annex 2 could be used and needed to be used in attacks.

It was stressed by the Committee that the client’s letter contains information that is necessary to solve the paper correctly. Candidates should therefore pay close attention to what is said in the client’s letter.

In Part 2, two new documents came up, A6 and A7. Both had interesting aspects to them. A6 was a transcript of a podcast. The podcast from which the transcript was made was downloaded after the effective date of the relevant claims, but the podcast (oral description) took place before. In addition, in the podcast two instances of public prior use were discussed, again having different dates. The candidates needed a clear head to get all this sorted out.

The paper referred to the download of the podcast in the form of a link. This link contained a string of numbers which by some candidates was interpreted as a date, which deviated from the dates given in the paper. If the candidate had used this consistently and argued well, no marks were deducted.

A7 was prior art pursuant to Art. 54(3) EPC for all claims of Part 2, but it’s real value was that it could be used as evidence for common general knowledge. Unfortunately, this was missed by many candidates.

In addition, one of the inventive step attacks in Part 2 relied on a technical effect of a distinguishing feature that was discussed not in relation to the invention, but in relation to the prior art that was mentioned in the patent to be attacked. It is noted that for several years (including 2024), the General remarks in the Examiner’s Report for Paper C comprise the following paragraph:

“The argumentation against inventive step should clearly identify the distinguishing features of the claim compared to the closest prior art. The technical effect associated to this difference is an advantage which has to be identified in the patent to be opposed and the appropriate basis must be cited.”

When asked about this during the tutor’s meeting, the reply was that a formulaic approach of the paper has to be avoided, and that technical effects can be found in different places. But it was also mentioned that this is not to be expected in the coming papers.

In short, the expected attacks on the claims were:

  1. In part 1:
  • Claim 1: attack on the basis of art. 100(c) EPC. However, this could potentially be repaired by the patent proprietor by splitting up the claim in claim 1a and claim 1b. Claim 1b would then have the same scope as claim 2. Against claim 1a, an attack for lack of inventive step was expected based on A3 and A5. Claim 1b was further dealt with under claim 2. As the cherry on top, claim 1 had partial priority.
  • Claim 2: The candidates needed to spot that Annex 2 (and its priority document) had the same drawings and the same applicant as the patent to be attacked. That should have alerted the candidates to a first application problem with respect to priority of claim 2. For full marks, it was necessary that the candidate noted that the priority document of Annex 2 was published and rights could be derived from it.
  • Two attacks on claim 2 for lack of novelty were expected. The first expected attack was based on Annex 2, which is prior art pursuant to Art. 54(3) EPC for claim 2. The second expected attack was to be based on the priority document of Annex 2, which is prior art pursuant to Art. 54(3) EPC for claim 2. For full marks, the candidates needed to make a clear distinction between Annex 2 and the priority document of Annex 2.
  • Claim 3: the expected attack on claim 3 was one for lack of inventive step, based on the priority document of Annex 2 in combination with Annex 4.
  1. In Part 2:
    Claim 4: an attack for lack of novelty in view of A5 was expected.
  • Claim 5: two attacks were expected. The first one was an attack for lack of novelty in view of Annex 7, which is prior art pursuant to Art. 54(3) EPC. The second one was an attack for lack of inventive step based on a combination of the “Model Q”-public prior use as discussed in Annex 6 in combination with common general knowledge, for which Annex 7 could be used as evidence.
  • Claim 6: An attack for lack of inventive step based on “Model P”-public prior us as discussed in Annex 6 in combination with Annex 5 was expected.
  • Claim 7: Again, an attack for lack of inventive step based on “Model P”-public prior us as discussed in Annex 6 in combination with Annex 5 was expected, this time in combination with non-technical features.

The second expected attack on claim 5 does not seem particularly strong, and I personally have seen several different attacks being made. Even the candidate’s answer in the compendium has a different attack than the one in the model solution as a second attack on claim 5. The Committee indicated that attacks other than those in the model solution could also get marks, if they are reasonable and well argued.

The Examiner’s Report suggests that clams with non-technical features can very well be expected to turn up in future C papers.


7) Paper D – by

Zsofia Pintz (HU)
Roel van Woudenberg (NL)

The D committee was represented by Tiem Reijns (epi, chairman D, member Examination Board) and Benoit Gilligmann (EPO, D2).

D1-part: summary of the paper

This year’s D1 came in two parts: 1 first part of 1 h 35 min and 26 marks (D1.1) and a second part of 1 h 45 min minutes and 29 marks (D1.2), i.e., a total of 55 marks, so -as in 2023- with a relatively large D1. The D1 had a well-balanced mixture of EPC and PCT questions, with common topics as well as some less-familiar topics. Candidates that were well-prepared, with a sound legal knowledge and familiar with their legal reference books and other material should have been able to score 60-75% or more out of the 55 marks within the time available.

Some topics were common topics that candidates could have expected, such as defects in a notice of opposition, extent of opposition and validation. Some topics were not so familiar, e.g. languages for amendments and for corrections under the PCT where the international application was not filed in English, French or German. This year, for the first time, there was also a Unitary Patent related question that was well answered by candidates.

The online access to the Guidelines GL/EPO, GL/PCT-EPO, PCT Applicants’ Guide a selection of other legal texts and in html-form (only) was convenient and may have been of additional help.

For the first time ever, the D1 included a 14 mark question (Q.1). The other questions were also of considerable length: 12, 9, 11 and 9 marks. The D committee indicated at the last tutor meeting epi Information 4/2023, page 41 ff that the number of questions has been kept constant over the years at 5 – 6, so that the average number of marks for them is much larger for a 55 mark D1 than for a (previously standard) 40 mark D1, and that the committee believes that candidates prefer long questions over shorter questions (some 5-6 mark questions were common in 40-mark D1s).

The D committee has noted that candidates performed well on the long questions for a high number of marks (e.g. 12 or 14 marks, see above), and this is now supported by statistics. Accordingly, the questions raised at the Tutors’ meeting of 2023 whether the high number of marks per question would be unfair to candidates appear to be unfounded.

D1-1:

The first D1 part, D1-1, consisted of only two questions of 14 and 12 marks, i.e. a total of 26 marks, for which 1 h 35 minutes were available, followed by a break.

Q.1 dealt with the language and translation requirements of an international PCT application, filed at the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (SPTO). In particular, for the EPO as International Searching Authority (ISA) to start the search. Furthermore, candidates had to discuss the procedural aspects associated with amending the claims under Art. 19 PCT and correcting an obvious mistake in the description. This included specifying the language, timing, and location for submitting these documents during the international phase. The D committee commented that the topic of languages is a usual topic in Paper D1. Q1 was very well answered by candidates, the average marks achieved being 58%.

Q.2 presented a scenario involving a European patent application, where many procedural steps were missed: response to negative search opinion not filed, non-payment of the designation fee, request for examination not filed (i.e. examination fee not paid), and also the non-payment of the renewal fee in respect of third year. The question called for a detailed discussion of the available remedies, such as requesting re-establishment of rights for missing further processing, and the specific steps and deadlines that the applicant had to follow to reinstate the application. The removal of the cause of non-compliance was “today”, i.e. the day of the exam.

It was noted that when using R.134(1), it is sufficient to cite this rule; the OJ listing the closed days does not need to be cited in the answers. Candidates can write “office closed” when using and citing R.134(1) EPC in their time limit calculations, without citing any specific OJs. Q2 was relatively well answered by candidates, the average score being 54%.

D1-2:

The second D1 part, D1-2, consisted of three questions of 9, 11 and 9 marks, i.e., a total of 29 marks, for which 1 h 45 minutes were available.

Q.3 involved procedural issues concerning a joint opposition filed by Mexico-resident and Spain-resident applicants (both nationals of Spain). Candidates needed to address the procedural deficiencies, mainly related to the missing representation and the translation filed without a valid signature. Most candidates realized that the Mexico-resident needed to appoint a professional representative, and that the representative needed to sign the notice of opposition. However, many candidates failed to realise that for the translation to retain its original date, the common representative must sign a letter with the translation (on invitation by EPO) within a time limit. Once this is done, the translation will retain its original date, i.e. will be considered “on time”.

The committee was surprised that Q3 was not well answered by candidates, even though the topic of representation is a common EQE topic, and the question could be easily answered using just the EPC rules or Guidelines. The marks awarded for this question were 46% on average.

Q.4 was about a granted patent, against which an admissible opposition is pending, but with limited extent: only independent claim 1 was opposed. (The patent in question further included dependent claims 2 and 3 and an independent claim 4.) The question required candidates to advise the patent proprietor on how to maintain the patent with the broadest possible scope of protection. This included analyzing late-filed prior art (EP-D2 and EP-D3) introduced by the opponent before oral proceedings, which challenged the novelty of claims 1 and 4.

Most candidates realized that EP-D2 and EP-D3 were late filed and will be admitted into the proceedings only if they are prima facie prejudicial to the maintenance of the patent. However, many candidates failed to recognize that EP-D3 is only relevant for claim 4, which is not covered by the extent of the opposition and will therefore not be admitted. Many candidates copied relevant provisions but failed to apply those to the situation at hand. Most candidates correctly suggested filing amended claims relating to subject-matters A+B and A+C.

Many candidates did not realize that subject-matter D cannot remain in a valid patent. Of those, who did, the majority missed that, to obtain a valid patent, subject-matter D should be deleted in a limitation procedure after the opposition.

The D committee commented that Q4 was not answered well, although similar questions are not rare in Paper D and are usually answered better. The average mark scored on Q4 was only 37%.

Q.5 focused on the post-grant steps necessary to obtain patent protection in the United Kingdom and Poland. Additionally, the question asked for the steps to request unitary patent protection for the patent that had French as language of proceedings. Candidates had to discuss procedural requirements such as time limits and translations to be filed. In view of the filing date being given, it was also expected to discuss renewals payable a) to the national offices for classical validation or b) to the EPO for the unitary patent.

Most candidates provided the correct steps and bases needed to validate EP-7 in Poland and the UK, as well as those needed to obtain Unitary Patent protection. Points were mostly lost with respect to when and where renewal fees need to be paid. For example, most candidates overlooked the special provisions for payment of the renewal fees in the UK.

Even though this was the first time a Unitary patent protection related question appeared in Paper D1, candidates answered this question very well. Based on the statistics, Q5 was the best answered question, the average score being 59% of the total available marks for this question.

The full answers to the questions are given in the Examiners’ Report. It also indicated, as every year, important guidance for answering (e.g., “Candidates are reminded that they should pay attention to the way the questions are asked”) - most of these points were also emphasized at the meeting (see above under “General remarks” and “Answering and marking”).

Of all topics tested, requesting unitary effect was not a surprise in view of the message on the EQE FAQEQE webpage -> FAQ: https://www.epo.org/en/service-support/faq/learning/european-qualifying-examination/general-information:
To which extent the syllabus of the EQE covers the Unitary Patent and transitional measures thereto?
The syllabus of the EQE includes all updates and publications as defined in Rule 22 IPREE as at the syllabus cut-off date (31 October of the year preceding the examination). This includes inter alia, OJ EPO 2022, A41, which sets out the “Implementing Regulations on Unitary Patent Protection” before the EPO.
, which referred to the UPR (OJ 2022, A41). Surprisingly, other recent developments such as G 4/19 (double patenting), amended Rule 56 EPC, new Rule 56a EPC and PCT Rule 20.5bis were not tested, nor were other aspects of the Unitary Patent such as the possibility for an early request (OJ 2023, Suppl 3, page 5-6).

D2-part: summary of the paper

This year’s D2 was a 45-mark for which 2 h 40 min was available, the shortest D2 exam so far (D2 2023 also was a 45-mark paper, but for that 2 h 45 min were available).

The paper was of a quite common design, with quite some different subject-matter. As usual, a careful patentability assessment was needed, followed by an improvement question and two who-is-free-to-do/can-prevent-the-other-to advice. As always, it was recommended that candidates follow the scheme for the questions in their response. In this case, to discuss the patent situation by patent/patent application and discuss the FTO/prevent aspects by method/subject matter, as asked in the exam. This way of structuring the answer helps candidates not to lose marks because of an incomplete analysis.

The D committee noted that Q2 (only 31% on average) and A4 (34% on average) were badly answered by candidates. The D committee reminded everyone that candidates are not expected to speculate in their answers, the necessary information is always given in the exam text.

Furthermore, it was noted that quite a few candidates did not answer the last question of the D2 paper, probably due to time constraints.

Candidates met Mr. Wool, Xeracno, Prosilk, and Smart SA. Candidates learned about harvesting spider silk, raising spiders, cannibalism between spiders and feeding spiders with tiger mosquitos. Even two species of spiders starred in the paper: AA (Aranea aurata) and AF (Aranea fortis).

The paper related to quite some different and difficult subject-matter. First a careful patentability assessment -esp. priority- was needed, followed by an improvement question, and then a who-is-free-to-do-what analysis. Candidates had to consider and deal with:

  • Mr. Wool, Silk, Xeracno, Prosilk, you
  • Harvesting spider silk, raising spiders, cannibalism, feeding with tiger mosquitos
  • Controlled atmosphere containing acetylene, CO2 and/or N2O (“containing”)
  • Genus all spider species - species AA (Aranea aurata) and AF (Aranea fortis)
  • Ranges, sub-ranges, examples, comparative examples
  • Sequence of applications, EP-P3 claiming priority from EP-P2 claiming priority from EP-P1
  • Partial priority - GL F-VI, 1.5; G 1/15
  • Partial first application - GL F-VI, 1.5; T 282/12
  • 54(3) prior rights
  • Product-by-process claim
  • Product protection from process claim
  • Opposition period not yet expired - but the paper did not provide any ground! This may have led candidates to double-double check whether they had overlooked something and thereby waste valuable time and/or may have led candidates to speculate on grounds (e.g., on the DeltaPatents blogs, some candidates tried to argue insufficiency)
  • Missed EP entry - loss-of-rights to applicant and not to agent of international phase
  • CH, DE, TR, BA (extension state), US (Colorado)
  • Preventing or being prevented from harvesting, selling, import for selling

Regarding Q3 and Q4 of D2, the questions were formulated in a way that candidates were expected to discuss the current production methods used in these specific locations. Considering other harvesting methods would involve speculation and was therefore not triggered by the question. Therefore, no bonus marks were awarded for such discussions.

As in the previous 3 years, the paper had to be taken fully from the screen in Wiseflow - nothing was printable. The pdf of the paper could be viewed side-by-side with the editor, without an annotation possibility; or in one or more separate tabs, with limited annotation possibility. No calendars were given with the exam paper, but candidates had to bring their own lists of Saturdays and Sundays and had to check EPO closure dates in the OJ.

General remarks (Tiem Reijns)

The pass-rate of Paper D 2024 was on the higher side: 55,64% and 12,76% compensable fail. Most candidates answered almost all questions. A possible reason for the high pass-rate is the fact that candidates are already used to the online platform and that the online environment makes it easier and/or quicker to find the legal basis. Furthermore, maybe after the low pass-rate of the 2023 Paper D candidates took their preparation more seriously. Finally, the D committee has also noted that Paper D 2024 was straightforward and there were not any general issues or problems with the paper.

Pre-received questions relating to general aspects (Tiem Reijns)

A tutor asked if the fact that the Notice from the Examination Board dd 19 November 2021 indicates: “A notice listing the dates on which the EPO filing offices are closed is published each year in the Official Journal. For the purposes of applying Rule 134(1), first sentence, EPC and Rule 80.5 PCT, candidates should refer to the relevant notice on EPO closing days. They will be able to access the EPO website for this during the exam.” means that candidates are expected to cite the applicable OJ in their answers. The reason for this question is that the possible solution in the Examiners’ Report does not mention OJ 2023, A80, despite the notice saying “candidates should refer to the relevant notice on EPO closing days”.

The D committee indicated that it is NOT required to cite the specific OJ. The candidates are only expected to consult the OJ publication for “office closed days”. However, they do not need to cite the OJ. It is expected, like in the previous years, to indicate either the reason (e.g. Good Friday) or simply “office closed”, and Rule 134(1) for the extension. There were no bonus marks awarded if a candidate cited OJ 2023, A80 in their answer.

A tutor wondered why renewal fees had to be discussed in Q5 of D1-2. In their view, the wording of the question excluded renewal fees as the question said “OBTAIN” which just relates to the steps of GETTING protection, but not to MAINTAINING it subsequently. According to the tutor, there was also no indication in the question how long the client wanted to HAVE protection, so that there was no trigger in the client needs/wishes to discuss maintaining protection – and paying renewal fees.

The committee answered that the ECIlI has been emphasising for many years that all information is present for a reason. Here, the exam date is “in the month of the anniversary of the patent”. The question specifically mentions that the mention of the grant was only 2 weeks before the exam. This is considered a clear trigger to consider WHEN and TO WHICH OFFICE renewal fees are to be paid.

The tutor also asked how many marks out of the total 9 were missed in case not discussing the renewal fees in Q5. Even though the ECIII never specifies points for individual answer elements, they shared that the comment in the Examiners’ Report (“Points were mostly lost with respect to when and where renewal fees need to be paid.”) was not to indicate a big loss, rather to indicate that a few easy points we missed.

Regarding D2, a tutor asked about the remedy of the non-payment of the extension fee for Bosnia-Herzegovina. The committee answered that in the configuration of the exam question, not only the extension fees were missed, but also the designation fees. In such a case, further processing can be applied as precisely foreseen in the Guidelines. So, when reviving the patent application and paying the designation fee which had been missed [+ one fee for re-establishment & one for further processing (see GL E-VIII-3.1.3)] extension fee for Bosnia-Herzegovina may still be paid as well.


8) Pre-Exam – by

Nico Cordes (NL)
Roel van Woudenberg (NL)

The Pre-Exam 2024 was the last Pre-Exam in view of the (gradual) introduction of the New EQE as of 2025 (starting with the Foundation paper in 2025). For that reason, the Pre-Exam was not discussed at this Tutor meeting.

We will first give some general comments on the paper, then discuss the legal part of the paper and finally the claims analysis parts.

General remarks

The last Pre-Exam! This was the fourth and last online Pre-Exam being held in a similar way as in 2021, 2022 and 2023: the Pre-Exam was split into 4 parts and the questions had to be taken almost fully from the screen (only the description of the application and the prior art for each of the claims analysis parts were printable).

As in 2022 and 2023, the order of the four statements in each of the questions was randomized. In the legal as well as the claims analysis parts, i.e., it was different for different candidates. Also, the order of the questions was randomized in the legal parts (e.g., the sequence used below is the one shown in the Compendium), but not in the claims analysis parts.

All questions, statements, prior art documents and claim sets were provided in all three official EPO languages. As in Pre-Exam 2022 and 2023, candidates could view the question body in a single language of choice in a first column on the left half of the WISEflow window, while the statements were presented in a second column on the right half of the window in all three languages without the possibility to select just one: this resulted in quite some scrolling, especially in the claims parts, where a single webpage showed four tri-lingual statements with True/False tick boxes.

As before, candidates were allowed to bring any printed reference material. During the exam candidates also had access to the EPO Legal Text pages, so including the full EPC Articles and Rules, Guidelines, GL/PCT-EPO, National Law Tables, Case Law, and the Euro-PCT Guide (HTML versions), and in this year also to some of the PCT Legal Texts, in particular the eGuide of the PCT Applicant’s Guide (Introductions and Annexes) and the Article and Rules. Access to the full pdf-versions of longer legal texts was generally not available. Access to the EPO texts was to the live versions, so to the versions in force on 15 March 2024, the date of the Pre-Exam (so not the version of 31.10.2023 a specified in the REE/IPEE). The PCT texts were in the version in force on 31 October 2023. In this year’s paper, candidates were allowedSee “EQE 2024: Notification and time limit calculation” on the EQE website, linking to https://link.epo.org/elearning/Notice_SB_Notification_EQE2024_EN.pdf to use the “old” version of Rule 126(2)/127(2) with the 10-day legal fiction for deemed notification as well as the “new” version with legal fiction of receipt on the date of the document and a compensation as the end in case of late receipt.

Some questions and statements were extensively debated in comments on the blogsRefer, e.g., to the DeltaPatents Pre-Exam blog https://pre-exam.blogspot.com, both the legal part and especially the claims part.

The Examiners Report shows that one legal statement and 5 claims analysis statements, so in total six (!) statements were neutralized for all candidates, corresponding to 11 marks:

  • 7.2 “EP-M1-A1 forms part of the state of the art against the subject-matter of claim 1 of EP-M2 under Article 54(3) EPC”: due to partial priority, EP-M1 is only prior art to a (conceptual) part of the claim, but not to the claim in its entirety;
  • 18.3 “The subject-matter of claim I.7 is not novel over D2”: the answer depends on whether the claim is interpreted as a second medical use claim or not;
  • 19.2 “For the following statement, assume that D1 is regarded as the closest prior art to the subject-matter of claim I.3: A valid argument that the subject-matter of claim I.3 involves an inventive step over D1 is that there is no hint in any one of documents D1, D2 and D3 that Product X has an antiviral effect”: the category of claim I.3 might be interpreted as being unclear because dependent claims I.3 does not repeat “product X for use …” which GL (2023) G-VI, 7.1.5 requires to be novel;
  • 19.3 “The subject-matter of claim I.6 is novel over D1”’: same reason as 19.2.
  • 19.4 “The difference of the subject-matter of claim I.8 over D3 as closest prior art may be regarded as not providing a technical effect”: similar reason as 19.2;
  • 20.3 “The subject-matter of claim II.10 complies with the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC”: the German version differed from the English and French version with a (possible) interpretation difference,

Further, statement 12.4 “ D1 discloses an electronic cigarette that provides a liquid solution to avoid the health risks caused by high nicotine concentrations.“ was successfully appealed by a candidate (D 2/24https://www.epo.org/en/boards-of-appeal/decisions/d240002eu1) and neutralized for that specific candidate: the DBA considered the understanding of the term “to provide” in the given context, and whether the electronic cigarette in D1 “provides” only vapour, which is the appellant’s understanding, to not be an illogical understanding, while that leads to the opposite answer from the understanding that it provides (also) a liquid solution (to avoid the health risks caused by high nicotine concentrations), which is the understanding of the Examiners’ Report.

Furthermore, we were informed by a candidate that appeal based on statement 5.3 “The Opposition Division may, of its own motion, examine EP-R for sufficiency of disclosure” was successful in interlocutory revision by the Examination Board, in view of no opposition being in existence (as the question says that no opposition fee was paid) so that there is no possibility for own motion by the Opposition Division (GL (2023) D-V, 2.2). We have no information whether more candidates appealed successfully on the same or other statements.

Legal part

The legal part of this year’s Pre-Exam had similar style and a difficulty level as in 2019-2023, and a bit more difficult than those of 2016-2018. As in the last few years, the legal questions were a mix of questions addressing several topics that were to be expected as well as several less standard topics which well-prepared candidates would have been able to find in their EPC/ PCT/ reference materials/ Guidelines, albeit with some effort.

As last year, several questions were amended versions from earlier Pre-Exam questions, with names of parties, names of applications and dates adapted. Candidates that practiced the earlier Pre-Exams using the Compendium or Q&A books will have recognized so when working on the paper and will have benefitted from having used them in their preparation.

Well-prepared candidates having good knowledge of the EPC and PCT and knowing their material well (reference books, EPO Guidelines, PCT Applicants’ Guide, Euro-PCT Guide, Q&A books, flowcharts, other course material) for fast look-up should have been able to answer most of the statements correctly and well within the time available, provided they had their material updated to the legal status of 31 October 2023 (the cut-off date for EQE 2024). The EPO Guidelines in particular play a key role to get to the right answers. Candidates with a poor preparation will have found those questions considerably more difficult than the questions from earlier years.

Q.1 addressed aspects relating to filing: periods for filing fee, translation and claims for an EP application, and period for filing a PCT application validly claiming priority.

Q.2 related to correction of the designation of inventor and asked whether an unnamed inventor may file an opposition based on the ground of not being mentioned as inventor. Q.2 was reused from the Pre-Exam of last year (Q.10 of Pre-Exam 2023), with names adapted.

In Q.3, two EP applications were filed without drawings in EP-F1 and without claims in EP-F2: the effect on the filing date of filing those late was tested. Also, first application requirements and the time limit to file the declaration of priority were tested.

In Q.4, the effect of non-unity in a PCT application on the EP phase was tested, covering amendments before examination under Rule 161(1)/162 EPC, an invitation for further search fees under Rule 164(2)(a) and other aspects of R.161(1).

Q.5 tested several aspects of opposition: period to pay the fee, clarity as (not) a ground of opposition, own motion of the Opposition Division to examiner fresh grounds and third party observations during opposition,

In Q.6, key elements of appeal were addressed: interlocutory revision by the Examining Division, the effect of a request for oral proceedings being overlooked by the Examining Division, missing address of the appellant and the time limits for filing the grounds of appeal vs that for the notice.

Q.7 presented a typical partial-priority situation and tested state of the art and novelty w.r.t. the two claims of an EP application, the first benefiting from partial priority (claimed “fork of metal” has partial priority from “fork of copper or zinc”), the second having an additional feature (“fork of metal with hollow handle”). We assume that this question was a challenge for quite some candidates, as the blogs also indicate; the neutralization of one of the two partial-priority statements helped many out.

In Q.8, more aspects of opposition were tested, in particular language-related aspects and aspects relating to the opponent being a national and resident of Poland: translation of the notice of opposition, allowed languages in oral proceedings and interpretation. Q.8 was reused from an earlier Pre-Exam (Q.10 of Pre-Exam 2016) with names, language and states adapted.

In Q.9, filing date of an international application and the time limit for entry in the EP phase, with and without remedy (further processing), were tested. A complication was that statement 9.4 “Further processing for performing the requirements for entry into the EP regional phase can be validly requested on 19 June 2024” did not consider non-paid renewal fees, which could have led candidates to the opposite conclusion than the official answer (TRUE).

Q.10 tested recording of changes under the PCT, who can validly file a first application at the EPO under EPC and at the EPO or IB under the PCT, where one applicant lives in Uruguay and is of Uruguayan nationality, where the question explicitly indicated that Uruguay is not a PCT member state. Q.10 was again reused from Q.5 of Pre-Exam 2019 (also already reused in Q.3 last year), with players and states adapted and, this time, with statement 10.4 changed from EPO to IB (with the effect that the answer was now TRUE, where it was FALSE in 2019 and 2023).

Claims analysis part

The claims analysis part had a similar style as the earlier online Pre-Exams of 2021-2023, in that the claims analysis part was again structured into two parts which were separately identified as part 3 and 4 (with parts 1 and 2 being the legal parts). As in the EQE 2019 and 2021-2023, parts 3 and 4 each concerned a separate case with their own sets of 5 questions each.

This year’s claims analysis part 3 was about electronic cigarettes while part 4 was about a Product X for use in treating infectious diseases.

The descriptions of the inventions as well as the prior art documents were considerably longer than in the papers of 2021-2023.

The claims analysis section of the 2024 EQE pre-exam was divided into two parts: part 3, focusing on electronic cigarettes, and part 4, which addressed ‘Product X’ for use in treating infectious diseases.

In part 3, questions examined the structural and functional aspects of electronic cigarettes. Candidates were required to assess claim scope, interpret technical features in light of prior art, and evaluate issues such as novelty, the allowability of amendments under Article 123(2) EPC, exclusions from patentability under Article 53 EPC, and inventive step.

Part 4 contained claims on ‘Product X,’ specifically for its applications as an antiviral, antibiotic, antifungal, and antiparasitic treatment. Candidates were required to analyse claims related to various formulations, dosages, and therapeutic applications, while taking into account prior art documents (D1, D2, and D3). Key topics in this part included sufficiency of disclosure, allowability of amendments under Article 123(2) EPC, exclusions under Article 53 EPC, novelty, and inventive step.

Notably, part 4 included a procedural question asking whether the EPO would issue a communication under Rule 63 EPC for a claim set containing multiple independent claims in the same category. The correct answer was FALSE, as the EPO would issue a Rule 62a EPC communication in such a case. This procedural question stood out because procedural matters are typically not a focus in the claims analysis part.

Another significant feature of part 4 was a set of questions on dependent claims which referred to an independent second medical use claim. These dependent claims did not adhere to EPO Guidelines (GL 2023, G-VI, 7.1.5) for second medical use claims, which define that each dependent claim should repeat the phrasing ‘Product X for use in…’ or ‘Product X for use according to…’ to maintain the structure of a second medical use claim. Without this specific language, these dependent claims could (and arguably should) be interpreted as product claims for ‘Product X’ per se, rather than as second medical use claims. The EPO neutralized four statements related to these dependent claims by accepting both TRUE and FALSE answers. This decision suggests that while the intended interpretation may have been as correctly phrased second medical use claims, the language subtleties might have been overlooked during drafting of the exam.

Additionally, an extra statement was neutralized due to a language inconsistency across versions. Specifically, an interpretative difference in the German version could lead to a different answer than in the English and French versions. To address this discrepancy, the statement was also neutralized.


9) Outlook to the New EQE

With the EQE 2025, the transition to the New EQE starts. In March 2025, the Foundation paper (“paper F”) will be present for the first time, along with the traditional A, B, C and D papers. In 2026, M1 and M2 will follow, along with the second edition of the Foundation Paper and the final edition of A, B, C and D. D1 and M2 will be the same paper in 2026. In 2027, the traditional papers will no longer be there and will be replaced by the papers of the New EQE.

In summer 2024, the EPO issued a mock paper F to give an idea of what this paper could look like. Recently, also epi released a mock F.

Progressive development of knowledge and skills is at the core of the design of the New EQE. However, currently many tutors are struggling with what is exactly expected from the candidates in the different stages of the New EQE. For example, what knowledge and skills do candidates not yet need for paper F but are tested in M1/M2? This is essential information for those of us who develop courses and training material for our candidates.

It was announced that a mock M1 paper will be released soon. This should give an insight in the steps that candidates have to take to grow from F-level to M1-level.


10) Foundation paper of the New EQE

The new paper F was discussed by Jakob Kofoed.

It was emphasized that that paper F is an entirely new paper, so it is not the same as the pre-exam. An important aspect of that is that paper F allows for different ways of asking questions, in contrast to the strict True-False format with four statements per question as in the pre-exam. All possibilities that Wiseflow offers for question formats that allow autoscoring can be expected. As an example was mentioned the selection of a date from drop down fields that basically allow to select any day in the year. The broader range of question formats is aimed at significantly reducing the possibilities for guessing the answers.

The new paper F can be taken by candidates with at least one year of experience. As the exam is held only once a year, the candidates sitting paper F will on average have about 18 months of experience in the profession.

However, this reduction in required experience does not mean that it will be an easy exam. Candidates will have to study seriously in order to pass. Paper F can also be expected to be less predictable than the pre-exam was. The questions can be expected to come directly from the EPC, the PCT and the Guidelines.

The aim is to design an exam in which a well-prepared candidate has a sure pass. But a candidate without proper preparation should fail, so very high pass rates (e.g. over 90%) are not aimed for.

In the mock paper F that was published in summer 2024, all questions could be scored with either full marks or zero marks, even in those cases where the questions contained multiple sub-questions. So also that question that had 8 sub-questions was scored with either full marks or zero marks, and nothing in between. It is still under debate whether this scoring model is to be applied to the real paper F as well. If it is, the reason for that will be again to reduce the possibility of passing by guessing.

The paper F of March 2025 can be expected to be similar in length, complexity and level to the Mock F of summer 2024. Questions will be aimed at the basics, but candidates need to know and understand these basics well in order to pass.

About 700 candidates have enrolled for the F paper of 2025.


11) Concluding remarks

The annual meeting of EQE tutors and members of the EQE Committees and of the Examination Board took place, by videoconference, on 22 and 23 October 2024.

With this report, tutors summarize the papers and provide information of the points discussed at the meeting so that candidates and other tutors can also find this information.

In addition, we hope that our summaries and comments can assist when reading and interpreting the official Examiners’ ReportsCandidates are reminded that “The purpose of the examiner’s report is to enable candidates to prepare for future examinations (cf. Art 6(6) of the Regulations on the European qualifying examination for professional representatives).” The Examiners’ Reports are available in the Compendium on the EQE website (https://www.epo.org/en/learning/professional-hub/european-qualifying-examination-eqe/compendium). of the EQE 2024 papers.



    Comments