M1 2026: first impressions?
To all who sat the M1-paper today:
What are your first impressions with respect to the very first M1-paper? Any
general or specific comments?
For example, what did you think
about the level of the questions, was that suitable for a candidate having two
years of work experience? Did any
unexpected topics come up? Any striking differences between Part 1 and Part 2?
Did you experience time pressure?
Please be reminded that, if you wish
to lodge a complaint pursuant to point I.9. of Instructions to Candidates EQE2026 concerning the conduct of
the examination, you must do so at the latest by the end of the day on
which the paper to which your complaint pertains takes place, by filling in the
dedicated form on the EQE website. The Form for paper M1 is only
available on 09.03.2026, 13:00 - 23:59, CET.
The paper and our answers
We aim to post our provisional answers in a separate blog post as soon as
possible after we have received a copy of the paper, preferably in all three
languages. Should you have a copy of at least a part of the paper, please send
it to any of our tutors or to training@deltapatents.com.
Please be reminded that you can view
and print/download copy of your exam answer after the exam, via the view/download
button below the "1. Paper"-icon in the bottom left part of the outer
shell of the respective flow. It may not be available immediately after the
official end of the (part of the) paper, it can take 30-60 minutes to appear. Note
that the copy of the answer of Part 1 most likely will include the questions,
but not any printable documents. The paper of Part 2 will most likely not be
downloadable as such.
Comments are welcome in any official
EPO language, not just English.
In order to make responding to your
comments easier, please do not post your comments anonymously. You can use
either your real name or a nickname. You do not need to log in or make an account - it is OK to just put your
(nick) name at the end of your post.
Please post your comments as to
first impressions and general remarks to this blog, and post responses to our
answer (as soon as available) to the separate blog post with our answer.
We look forward to hearing from you!
The paper seemed to me to be in line with the level of difficulty of the various mock exams I had practiced on. Still, I'm curious to find out whether or not the independent claim 1 I modified in part 2 was correct.
ReplyDeleteWe'll post our provisional answers as soon as we have them (but we first need to get our hands on the complete paper...). And I'm curious - did you do the DP-mocks in your preparations?
DeleteThank you for your work :) Yes, I did them, and I must say that it was good preparation for today's exam.
DeleteThat's great to hear!! I put them together on the basis of very little information, so I'm happy that I wasn't too far off ;-)
DeleteSomeone on the exam committee clearly does woodworking in their spare time. Part 1 was okay I thought, part 2 I thought looked really nice but I think I messed up the amendment and selection of CPA.
ReplyDeleteHow did you amend the claim ? And how do you think it should have been done ?
Delete@FM9 I amended the claim to include the feature of pectin only and selected D2 as CPA. I think the model answer will be CMC + pectin 10% wt. and D1 CPA, because D3 taught us pectin is a hydrocolloid and D1 taught that hydrocolloids are used for improved wound healing, so selecting pectin is a routine modification of D1 for the PSA. The only way just reciting pectin in claim 1 is inventive is if the improved wound healing due to structurally supporting cells is a hitherto unknown technical effect (no mention of structurally supporting cells leading to improved wound healing in D1). That’s my two cents. Thankfully no problems in German paper this time (at least that I could spot).
DeleteI guess we can be quite thankful, that it was the same topic as the mock M1 😅.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think about the exam level?
After looking at the F part of this year, I honestly think it was the same level as the foundation paper and not harder.
How does DP manage to get the questions to Part 2? Does it rely on people copying and pasting the questions into the text editor and then downloading them and providing them afterwards....
ReplyDelete@Tobius, yes, I can’t answer things properly if I don’t past the question into my answer sheet, so I don’t do it like that to be able to share the answers, but for myself. I didn’t add the client letter and the ESR though, so don’t know how delta will get access to those. I was too afraid of amending clam 1 to just pectin with fear it would be against 123(2), so I added CMC + 10% pectin just like we had in that paragraph of the disclosure. I have talked to many candidates already that limited to just pectin though. Looking at it again I think just pectin would work for the exam. In real life? Good luck, no examiner would accept that. But this is what I don’t like about these exams, you don’t get the examples and the full disclosure like you used to get in the preexam, so it’s hard to check support properly. For me that’s such a turn off this this model. You’re relying on so many assumptions. Why not just give you the real data? #rantover
DeleteI selected D1 as CPA, it was the prior art from which you could start and modify the least. For the inventive step discussion I went with wound healing
Overall I thought it was a fair exam. Good topic, fairly straight forward, topic was easy enough to understand for all backgrounds. My amended claim had cmc and pectin and my cpa was D2. My biggest complaint though is wiseflow is junk. I kept getting a spinning wheel (I have a MacBook) and thought it was gonna crash. This def took away time for part 2 where I needed every second to explain all 6 answers. But I had to wait for wiseflow to quit thinking.
ReplyDeleteSide note: could anyone else not print the materials? I couldn’t print either part. And I printed another pdf to make sure it wasn’t my printer and that printed. Not sure if it’s worth it to make a complaint or not.
CMC and pectin without the 10% wt. limitation?
DeletePrinting was fine for me tbh. I experienced wiseflow as much faster this time compared to when doing M2 where it took a full 2 minutes for the paper to load and a full two minutes to submit my answers. One thing that did annoy me was that in part 1 we were clearly told which pages were missing and would be given in the exam (i.e. in part one we knew we were expecting two new pages to be disclosed), whereas in part 2 we had to deduce from the page numbering that page 3 was missing and would be given in the exam. In any case it wasn't just page 3 that was missing there were additional pages disclosed in part 2 as well. Why the excellent organization in part 1 and the comparative disorganization in part 2...
@Tilnextyear yes, I couldn’t print the materials for the first part, had to send the pdf to my WhatsApp and print it from my phone with airdrop. It definitely stressed me out a lot. I didn’t have this issue with part 2. In part 2 first only the German description appeared though and it made me sweat for one minute , but then they uploaded the other languages
Delete@ Tobius and @ Kat: did you try to print from the view window or did you download and then try to print? Both should work but my advice is to download and then print, as the printing quality from the view window is horrible and I also think it takes longer (maybe a time-out issue on you rprinter?)
DeleteNo with the 10% limitation. And valid point about the page numbering. For M2 I had no problems with wiseflow. Who knows then 😂
ReplyDeleteMy amended claim had only pectin and CPA was D1. CPA was a toss-up, but D1 had plaster (albeit for a more general skin condition) and carrier film, while D2 just was closer to blisters on feet. Pectin was disclosed in D3, but i argued that it was a very far removed technical field and furthermore no pointer in D3 to let the skilled person apply pectin in the patches of D1(or D2).
ReplyDeleteThe claim must include “at least 10% pectin” to comply with Article 123(2) EPC.
Delete@AO why must the claim include ''at least 10% pectin''? Para beginning at line 15 of page 2 of the specification as filed provides: ''In some embodiments, the hydrocolloid layer comprises pectin. When pectin is used in the hydrocolloid layer, it provides structural support for cell and tissue regrowth and therefore speeds up wound healing time. In a preferred embodiment, the hydrocolloid layer comprises CMC and at least 10% weight/weight (w/w) pectin''
DeleteThe feature of pectin in isolation is clearly generalizable. Nowhere in the specification is a specific weight% of pectin taught as essential. 10% weight/weight is a preferred embodiment.
If you introduce the 10% w/w of pectin feature you also need to add the CMC feature otherwise that will violate Art. 123(2)
Yes, I agree with Tobius, this is definitely not an issue related to A123(2). I personally limited the claim to pectin without the 10% restrictions. I don't think D3 can be used for inventive step given how far removed it is, but perhaps we can discuss novelty... I would say that “plaster” has inherent limitations compared to the disclosure in D3, but honestly, I'm not sure what the expected answer was...
DeleteI agree with Tobius and FM9 that there was definitely support for including pectin without the 10% w/w.
DeleteRegarding D3 accidentally anticipating a claim where pectin is included: If this is the case, I am leaving this industry… I thought long and hard about this during the exam. We are told not to use own knowledge, but putting sugar and fruit into a wound doesn’t sound healthy? And to be able to say that D3 can be deemed to be a “Plaster”, one would have to assume some things as well. But, the text with the definitions and the sentence about putting jam on the “cling film” seemed to possibly hint towards something like that…
But this cannot be the case. GL B-XI, 3.2.1 states the following regarding the European search report: “In general, all claims are referred to, and all documents cited as "X" or "Y" against certain claims are referred to in the search opinion with a related objection”. In the EESR we were given on the exam, only D1 was raised as novelty destroying against the original claims. D3 was merely mentioned as “D3 relates to pectin”.
So, if the EESR is in line with the requirements of the Guidelines, this means that the original claim 1 is novel in view of D3 (as D3 was not referred to in the search opinion with a related novelty objection). Thus, claim 1 as amended including pectin in the layer is (of course) also novel in view of D3. We candidates must be able to trust these types of hints. We cannot be expected to think that the examiner didn’t follow the guidelines when drawing up the EESR?
D3 just cannot be problematic for novelty. I won't accept it.
DeleteThere is no way that a cling film can be seen as a carrier film, not by common sense, nor by the definition in the application. No need to even discuss the plaster, which is also not present.
That being said, why is the EPO testing us on our interpretation of words instead of on our ability to draft or amend or something? What's the point? Obfuscation to increase the difficulty artificially?
I also dismissed D3 for novelty due to (a) D3 not being cited in the EESR in respect of novelty, and (b) the idea that "plaster" implies some structural limitations. However, GL F-IV, 4.13.1 seems to suggests that limitations are only implied if the claim is formatted as "Tool for X", e.g. "mould for molten steel". My claim was in the form of "Hydrocolloid plaster comprising X, wherein..." and so perhaps does not have such implied limitations.
DeleteThe more I think about it, I suspect the mark scheme will indeed deem D3 anticipatory to claim 1 as filed + pectin, and that the weird jam/cling film statement was a hint by the examiner.
Nobody can honestly say they wouldn't argue with an examiner that cling film with jam on it anticipates a plaster, and instead they would immediately limit their claim so strongly at the R 70/70(a) stage. The M1 exam also comprised questions to may us think about acting in the client's best interests - clearly a strong limitation at such an early stage of proceedings would not be in the client's best interests.
At some point, the EQE starts to feel like mind games more than actually testing a candidate's ability to practice before the EPO. Good for crossword practice but it's a shame it doesn't prepare me for my day to day job.
These are very interesting discussion points, but I agree with the sentiment above. If the examination committee consider that D3 anticipates a claim to a hydrocolloid plaster comprising pectin then they must have been freebasing when they wrote this. There is no direct and unambiguous disclosure of a plaster there, and unless you reworded the claim to use a ''suitable for'' construction I don't see how that logic could fly under Art. 54.
DeleteThere is also no definition of cling film given; okay we all know from real life that ''cling'' film is an adhesive film but we are not supposed to speculate or use technical knowledge from outside of the exam. If the cling film feature was that important we really should have been given a definition/hint that cling film has adhesive properties. In any case there is no indication in D3 that pectin and cling film can be used as a dressing to treat wounds or skin conditions such as blisters, minor burns, corns, calluses, or acne, so it doesn't meet the definition of a plaster given in D1. To suggest combination of D1 and D3 gets you there is a stretch given the skilled person would have no incentive to read D3 when furnished with either D1 or D2 as CPA.
I agree with Omar that these exams are starting to feel more like an elaborate mind game than a test of fitness to practice. When the exam committee are not torturing candidates with their contrived scenarios, they are subliminally trying to teach us to concede claim scope on first exam without so much as a fight. The whole point of the revamped EQE is that it was meant to more closely mirror real life practice, but mirror real-life practice these exams do not.
I based my answer grounding myself on the solutions of part 2 of the EPO mock - and in the mock you had D4, which was in a remote field, and if you looked at the model solution you were supposed to just say that you can't combine it for inventive step due to remote field, etc. If there would have been more time, I would have definitely discussed that pectin could have been considered a hydrocolloid, since I agree they seemed to be hinting to this by how they defined it in the application. I also agree with Tobius that saying that jam on a culinary cling film is a plaster with all the features of the claimed invention is kind of outrageous - when I read this I thought they were just putting this to make people panic and go down this rabbit hole. I assumed that the examiner mentioning it in the ESR was a warning that if we added it in claim 1 we had to be prepared to defend inventive step - which we could despite the remote clinical field, because there was no indication that using pectin speeds up wound healing time, which to me was an indication to use this for the objective technical problem. To be extra cautious I added CMC in claim 1, to go away from issues of claim 1 directed to a hydrocolloid plaster with only pectin.
DeleteFrom what I understand (I might be wrong), a claim phrased as "Hydrocolloid plaster comprising X,..." is narrower than a claim worded as "XX suitable for use as a Hydrocolloid plaster" (or similar GL F-IV, 4.13.1-formulation). In the first case, only an actual hydrocolloid plaster can anticipate the claim, whereas in the latter, anything suitable for use as a hydrocolloid plaster can. At the very least, the first wording cannot imply less limitations than a “for”-claim, one cannot disregard the term “Hydrocolloid plaster”.
DeleteI'm eager to see the model solution and find out the answer to this mystery. I actually believed the exam was well-designed and challenged a range of skills, except a bit heavy on product for process in the first part. However, if the sugar, fruit, and pectin on cling film turn out to be a plaster, my opinion will shift...
I liked the exam, after the traumatizing experience that M2 was I feel like I can properly breathe again. I did the M1 DeltaPatents distance learning course and didn’t study more than attending the lectures, solving the mocks that Nyske drafted and some cases from the case book Nyske compiled (definitely not all as I spent most of the last three months studying for M2) and I felt very good. I had the model answers of the EPO mock and from the delta mocks printed and marked, and I just copied the same statements, since time was too short to properly think and draft something from scratch. Will definitely be doing the M3 with Delta again. It made me giggle to see the same metallic hand plane as in the EPO mock appearing in part 1, together with the fact that they fixed the unclarity issue of mentioning that it was the body that was coated and not the knife. It saved me quite a lot of time not to have to understand a new invention from scratch. The formulation of claim 3 of EP-1 was a bit sketchy, but since there were no questions on it I ended up accepting is as clear: “(…) the metallic surface is on a metallic hand plane body.” - maybe this sounds like a normal formulation for mechanics people?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your kind words Kat! I'm sooo relieved that the course matches with the paper... we had so little information to go on when designing the course..
Delete@DeltaPatents If you have not received the paper yet, it is available on the epo website (https://www.epo.org/fr/learning/eqe-epac/european-qualifying-examination-eqe/compendium/epreuve-m1)
ReplyDeleteCheck - thanks! I did receive the paper (Part 2 in bits and pieces but hey, I like a good puzzle!) from a few candidates who were so kind to send to me what they could get their hands on. We're in the process of working through the paper and preparing the blog with provisional answers, but we do have to benchmark paper B tomorrow moring so bear with us for a bit.
DeleteI just thought that amending to just pectin wouldn’t be novel over D3 because D3 discloses clingfilm (a carrier film) and pectin. The clingfilm and jam comprising pectin would act as a “plaster” according to the plaster definition as either the clingfilm can be adhesive or the jam would be sticky and adhesive (a stretch I know). Maybe I’m super paranoid about novelty and added matter in the exams but that was why I went for CMC + at least 10% pectin
ReplyDeleteI got honestly very confused in Part 2: A medical use claim for Originally filed Claim 1 would give broades protection for the client (e.g. not limiting for use of pectin, which was only important for "some embodiments" and also in line with the order "we believe our technology is also relevant to other markets such as hydrocolloid wound dressings. We would like to cover these other uses as far as possible.":
ReplyDelete"The term “plaster” is used herein to describe an adhesive, protective covering (such
as a sticker or patch) that is applied to skin and can be used as a dressing to treat
wounds or skin conditions such as blisters, minor burns, corns, calluses, or acne." ("Wounds" are different from "Skin Conditions")
"It also seals the blister, forming a protective barrier and keeping the wound clean." (Blister == Wound)
I did interpret D1 as purely cosmetic "Our best-selling hydrocolloid pimple patches form a protective seal over spots and visibly improve their appearance" (however had doubts because of "..heal spots by absorbing bacteria and fluid." from the beginning.)
Did write it all to the end and in inventive step argumentation I thought "probably they want to hear sth. different" and then rewrote everything in 15 min, Copy/Pasting my Medicaluse answer to Question 5.
Will likely get a second round for M1 :D
The amount of product-by-process question was insane.
ReplyDelete