Training for EQE

As now the date for EQE main exam is getting closer, I try to intensify my training for papers A, B and C.

As these are practical papers, I mainly sit past papers in exam conditions. For the moment, and as afr as I could see form the comments from examiners for each paper I tackled, except for papers B in which I didn't draft the good claims, my results are rather encouraging. I estimated I obtained pass marks, and still finishing the papers within the time limit.

Seminar paper C

Since I came back from Strasbourg I didn't really have time to resume the seminar about paper C I could follow last week.

It was rather intense, and also very useful, as for papers A and B. But I could notice a difference: for the paper C seminar I strongly suggest to read the parts of the paper C book to be read before coming to the seminar. I did it and it helped me understand and easily follow the first afternoon of this seminar. On the contrary, I saw some colleagues who hadn't read the parts of the book and they seemed rather lost at the beginning.

Post from Strasbourg

This new post is about the Paper A/B seminar organized by the CEIPI in Strasbourg, and which ended this morning.

I must say that this was really usefull, thanks to the material and presentations provided, and especially thanks to the tutor we had.

The tutor gave us valuable practical advices about how to analyze the paper A documents with particular focus on the letter's client (obviously).

The same was true for the part about paper B. And in two days we made two mock papers in condition of examination (one A and one B).

Post from an EQE candidate

Hello everyone,

further to the call for bloggers published on this website last september (see here) I accepted to participate and so, here I am to share my thoughts and feelings about my preparation for EQE 2015.

I'm now preparing main exam, papers A, B and C. I managed to validate paper D last year.

T0754/13 Clear, concise and supported !

This decision is a good refresher on how the EPO looks at the requirements of clarity under Article 84 EPC. The appeal lies from a decision of the Examining Division.

2. Clarity (Article 84 EPC)

Article 84 EPC requires that "The claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought. They shall be clear and concise and be supported by the description".


T1474/12 Clear clarity

This is an opposition appeal case, where the Board had to decide on a (in my view) creative way of alleged lack of clarity. The Board did not accept the argument by the opponent:

R4.1 Claim 1 differs from claim 1 as granted in that the expression "sample of bodily fluid" is replaced by the expression "sample of urine, plasma or serum".


EQE Training at Maastricht University

As of October 2014 Maastricht University will provide training for candidates preparing for the European Qualifying Examination.

The training will be will be given by Cees Mulder and Nyske Blokhuis. Both, European patent attorneys and tutors who have been teaching for many years in preparing candidates for the EQE.

At present training is available for papers C and D. 

More information here.



T0607/10 Late filed arguments

Late filed amendments or prior art have been subject of many decisions and case law has developed around that subject. For late filed arguments it is not always clear whether those have/are to be admitted into the proceedings or not. This decision deals with just that and I will limit this post to the Catchword which is clear and reads as follows:



Subscribe to EQETools RSS