The Annual meeting of EQE tutors and members of the EQE committees took place on 14 October 2026, with around 70-80 participants attending the online event. Since the event was only one day long, unfortunately there wasn’t much possibility for interactive discussions between tutors and committee members. Furthermore, surprisingly, it wasn’t only the Examination Committees who presented but also some of the course providers.
The official report with a detailed summary will be published in epi Information (edition 4/2026) in December 2026.
Maryna Welsch and I attended this meeting and tried to take many notes. In this post, we are sharing some of our personal — and probably somewhat random — notes that may be relevant for EQE 2027 candidates.
Disclaimer: These are personal notes intended to help candidates and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the EPO or epi.
About complaints:
Filing a complaint is possible by midnight of the exam (online, free of charge).
A general message is that candidates should only file complaints in case of actual problems they personally experienced.
Please avoid filing copied complaints or submitting them merely in the hope of gaining marks. It is not necessary to file a complaint in order to be able to file an appeal later on. (The right to be heard still applies, so if an issue arises, you will have the opportunity to respond even if you did not submit a complaint.)
The Examination Board has to consider every complaint, but their resources are limited. It’s in everyone’s interest that they have time to focus on genuine issues and real problems.
General:
This year (2026) many candidates who did well overall were allowed to pass, so the pass-rate was relatively high
With time, variety in new papers (e.g. Paper M1) will increase, but the level of difficulty not
Don’t ask for a date when the results are being released. There is an incredible amount of work involved, and they have to make sure there are no mistakes in the Results letters. If they had to give an official date, it would probably be September, so that it can be met. However, they prefer not to give a certain date for releasing the results but try to publish them as soon as they can.
New EQE designed as a three-step exam at different levels:
Declarative knowledge level ("knowing") - candidate needs to know and recognise individual concepts and apply them in an isolated context (F)
Interpretation level ("understanding") - candidate needs a holistic understanding of the system and how the different parts work together (M1 and M2)
Advisory level ("taking action") - candidate analyses complex situation and creates a solution to best meet the needs of the client (M3 and M4)
The difference between F and M2 (and M4) is not the extent of the syllabus, but the level of the answer. F questions can be answered with 1 or 2 thinking steps from the EPC/PCT/GL etc, for M2, they should expect questions with a pointer to the legal context, but also points to choices that can be made. In M4, there will be additional pointers to which choices would be best for the client.
Paper F:
Paper F tests declarative knowledge, which means that candidates will not be expected to deal with strategic or exceptional situations but rather to know the legal texts and apply them in simple, day-to-day, straightforward situations.
However, the testing goes beyond the mere reproduction of facts. "Straightforward" does not necessarily mean "easy"; however, questions requiring lengthy chains of argumentation or consultation of multiple legal sources are ruled out.
In principle, all parts of a question must be answered correctly to get the marks. However, there are exceptions (difficult questions and/or questions with many statements and/or questions for many marks) where marks will still be given also for partially correct answers.
All procedures before the EPO must be familiar to candidates, including opposition, limitation and appeal.
Candidates have to be familiar with the structure and content of the EPC and PCT so that they can find the answers to the questions quickly.
Case law (e.g. G decisions) that is mentioned in the GL can be tested of Paper F.
Paper F 2026 was more challenging than Paper F 2025, but the pass-rate was still high (above 80%).
The claims analysis part of Paper F 2026 was novelty heavy, but this will likely stay the case in the future too; as the most important topics are: novelty, clarity, added matter and inventive step.
Paper M1:
Paper M1 assesses whether the candidate can carry out tasks relating to analysis and assessment of information and can evaluate and act on instructions from a client.
Purpose: Can the candidate apply the procedural patent law of EPC and PCT in daily as well as exceptional situations?
Paper M1 differs significantly from Paper F:
When it comes to overall complexity: need to synthesise multiple pieces of analysis to reach the answer
Paper M1 also tests if the candidate has a holistic insight into how the European patent system works, e.g. how to obtain a certain desired outcome for a business or competitors
With time, variety will increase, but the level of difficulty not.
So, part 2 will not necessarily be a response to office action (there is no limitation in the Regulations, they allow for a wide variety of scenarios and case settings)
Ideal preparation is real world experience
It will include simple, everyday technology, so don’t worry about not understanding technical elements (no tricks in the exam, the invention should be straightforward)
Candidates should take the teaching of the paper at face value - no hidden tricks
For example, in 2026 Paper M1 Part 2, D3 was not cited as novelty destroying document in M1 part 2, meaning that D3 does not disclose all the features!
Paper M1 also assesses whether the candidate can:
understand an invention (for example as described in a patent publication or disclosures)
and/or data provided by the clientassess the invention in view of prior art
analyse the compliance of the invention and the application or patent with the provisions of the EPC
Paper M2:
As you know, both parts of M2 need to be passed to pass the M2 exam. In 2026, very few candidates passed one part and failed the other.
Every word in the questions is there for a reason; you need to read very carefully
More than 50% will be free text (Art 1(5)(c) REE says at least 50%, meaning 50-100%)
We will not know how many points the exam is before the exam (it's not a 100-mark exam anymore, the REE does not require a fixed number of points)
M2 is about interpretation
Particularly in questions requiring advice to a client, answers should be structured, practical, and outcome-oriented
It is not sufficient to list options; candidates should clearly explain how the proposed measures affect the client's position and why they are relevant in the given circumstances.
Candidates often forget to draw conclusions, although there are marks for that too
From 2027, M2 will have a new style:
M1-1: 2 questions "new style" (90 min)
M1-2: 3 questions "only free text" (90 min)
The presence of alternative question types will not make M2 2027 easier.
Referring to UP/GL gives the same amount of marks (it’s an accepted alternative legal basis), although it is not part of the syllabus
Should it be added to the exam syllabus? It won’t be added for now, which is in the best interest of candidates:
If the UP/GL are part of the syllabus, there can be questions that can be answered solely on based on the UP/GL.
If the UP/GL are not in the syllabus, candidates have them as a reference anyway; and can use them in their answers where relevant.
Candidates don’t have to worry about questions about IP5 offices
Art.13(2)(b) REE is quite clear on this:
"the national laws applied by the IP offices defined in the IPREE to the extent that they are of importance in connection with proceedings before the EPO." Accordingly, questions about the IP5 Offices are not really expected, just as questions in the old EQE rarely concerned the US or Japan.
Paper M3:
It's one paper, drafted by one group of people
However, even though it is one exam, nobody will be disadvantaged by not sitting all the parts:
familiarity with the content of the other parts will confer neither an advantage nor a disadvantage to candidates sitting only one or more parts of M3
All M3 parts can have the same subject matter, as in the EPO M3 mock, or cover different subject matters. Both are possible under the current regulations (REE and IPREE). In either case, the parts will be standalone, so you are not at a disadvantage if you take only one of the parts. They are not the same invention that moves from “drafting” to “attacking”.
Can test any stage of any proceedings (e.g. defending can be response to opposition)
The new M3 papers are not simply shorter versions of the old A/B/C papers. The knowledge and skills tested remain similar, but they are tested in a different way. Some parts are more similar to the old system, such as Part 1, while others appear to be much broader in scope. Overall, more issues and scenarios can be tested. The papers may involve different procedural situations and tasks compared with the old system, especially in Parts 2 and 3.
Practising past A/B/C papers alone will not prepare candidates for all the skills tested in M3, but it is still the best starting point. (When practising Parts 2 and 3, keep different scenarios in mind: How would this objection look if it were raised in opposition? What do you need to consider at this stage? What if this were a TPO? What would become relevant then?)
It was noted that daily exposure to drafting, defending and attacking work would be beneficial.
Candidates should not assume that a particular legal issue will always appear in the same part of the examination.
Part 3 is not a mini Paper C exam, so it can also happen that inventive step has lower focus
The emphasis in all parts is on decision-making and advising the client, rather than simply analysing the case.
The objective is to find the solution that provides the best outcome for the client, so considering the client's wishes is very important.
Candidates should not automatically assume that the examiner or the opponent is correct. There may be good reasons why an objection is incorrect or why the examiner's position should be challenged.
The hints needed to understand the situation will be provided in the client's letter. (However, also keep in mind the stage of the proceedings and what can be challenged. For example, if you are in opposition and the opponent raises an objection regarding unity, such an objection may need to be challenged even without clear guidance in the client's letter. This means that understanding where you are in the procedure and what can be done at that stage is important.)
Everything that falls within the syllabus and can be tested according to the REE can be tested in M3. This includes, among other things, unity, entitlement and other Enlarged Board of Appeal (G) decisions covered in the guidelines.
The exams are still drafted with one solution in mind
However, as in the old system, viable alternatives will also receive marks. There may be several possible ways to achieve novelty and inventive step. Candidates must decide which solution is best for the client.
A candidate's answer to the three parts will be looked at with care, they will also check how a candidate dealt with all three parts
Paper M4:
Paper M4 is the closest to the old exams, namely to Paper D2
No legal basis needed, however, citation can sometimes be helpful to shorten your answer
e.g. write: “fulfil the requirements of Rule 159(1) EPC” instead of listing the specific requirements listed in the rule (e.g. pay the filing, designation fees, renewal fees, etc.)
Situation as-is analysis part will be a bit more straightforward to allow candidates to focus more on identifying solutions and advising the client, which is the core of paper M4
A candidate fit to practice is not only able to analyse the situation, but also to advise the client on what should be done next
More focus on client's need and giving advice, so the division of marks will be different from past D2 exams
it can be that more than half of the points are available for the advice part
The papers style/complexity are expected to be somewhat reflected by the EPO Mock M4 paper and D2 of 2026.
The emphasis will be on evaluating available options and identifying the preferred course of action. As usual, there is a model solution in mind, and the paper will guide candidates towards it.
Legal analysis remains essential, but is no longer the final product; the final product is a well-reasoned recommendation
Instead of simply listing all possible legal options, candidates need to give clear and practical advice, client focused reasoning and recommendations supported by legal analysis
However, alternative solutions will also receive marks based on their correctness and applicability (just like in Paper D)
The questions are there to guide candidates, to push them into the right directions (for 60 points they ask more questions), but based on the Regulations, there is actually no requirement to provide questions at all
Questions in M4 in the next few years will be similar to the previous years: general, guiding questions
And finally, candidates are reminded to read the instructions and rules carefully before the EQEs.