Friday, November 06, 2026 EPAC 2026 Module 2 EPC Patent grant procedure

Here is our attempt at EPAC 2026 Module 2.

In itself the exam seems a reasonable balance between easier and more tricky questions.

Candidates may have struggled with the length of the exam.

We are of the opinion that question 8 - third issue is badly drafted and should probably be cancelled.

Question 7 F also struggles with the 'clarity' requirement. 

Please feel free to comment. Preferably do not use 'anonymous'; you can use an alias.

Jelle Hoekstra, Tanja la Cour Hoekstra, Sander van Rijnswou, Wouter Scharpach

Question 1 (3 points) – Filing date requirements

European application EP-X was filed on 3.3.2026 as a first filing (no priority claimed). The application included the following:

•  An indication that a patent was sought

•  Name and phone number of a representative

•  A set of drawings

 

Question 1.1 (1 point) EP-X was not accorded a filing date. Which of the following statements explains why?
A	Because no description was included in the application	✓
B	Because no claims were included in the application
C	Because no information identifying the application was included in the application
D	Because the representative’s address was not provided in the application

 Legal basis:

The filing date criteria of R.40(1) are:

a)      indication that EP patent is sought [R.40(1)(a); A-II 4.1.1]
b)     providing ‘information identifying the applicant or allowing the applicant to be contacted’  [R.40(1)(b); A-II 4.1.2]
c)      description or reference to previously filed application [R.40(1)(c); A-II 4.1.3]

 

Question 1.2 (1 point) On 7.4.2026, the EPO issued a communication pursuant to Rule 55 EPC inviting the applicant to correct the deficiency. What was the last day for replying to the invitation? Enter the date in the dropdown menus (dd-mm-yyyy):

08-06-2026

 Comment:

Time limit of R.55 is 2 months.

7.4.2026 + 2m = 7.6.2026 (Sunday) à 8.6.2026 (Monday and all EPO offices are open)

 

Question 1.3 (1 point) The applicant replied to the communication under Rule 55 EPC within the time limit and by duly correcting the deficiency. Is the following statement true or false?		True	False
A	The filing date accorded to EP-X is the date when the application was filed, i.e. 3.3.2026		✓

 Comment:

The date of filing is the date on which the EPO received all info complying with R.40(1) and is either:

• the date of receipt at the EPO or competent national authority, or
• the date, not later than the two-month period referred to in Rule 55, on which the applicant rectifies any deficiencies.  [Art.80, R.40(1; A-II 4.1.5; A-II 4.1)]

 

Question 2 (2 points) – Representation

A French natural person X, who resides permanently in the United States, is involved in several proceedings before the EPO and is not represented by a professional representative.

TRUE/FALSE – For each statement, assess whether X can validly perform the act personally before the EPO.

 

	True	False
As applicant for a European patent application, X may sign and file EPO form 1001.	✓
As appellant in ex parte appeal proceedings, X may pay the appeal fee.	✓
As applicant for a European patent application, X may file claims in response to an invitation under Rule 58 EPC.		✓
As applicant for European patent application, X may file a response to a communication under Article 94(3) EPC.		✓
X may file third-party observations under Article 115 EPC	✓

 Legal basis

A natural/legal persons resident outside a Contracting State may file a patent application themselves, but all further procedural acts (apart from paying fees) must be done by a ‘professional representative’ [Art.133(2)].

 Fees may be paid by any person [GL A X 1]

 

Question 3 (7 points in total) – Filing of divisional

European patent application EP-A was filed on 23.2.2024.

The decision of the examining division refusing EP-A was notified on 2.11.2026 through MyEPO Mailbox.

 

Question 3.1 (1 point) – Application “pending” in period for filing appeal What is the last day on which a divisional application can be filed without having to pay the EPO any further fee in respect of EP-A? Enter the date in the dropdown menus (dd-mm-yyyy):

04-1-2027

 

Legal basis: A divisional application may be filed relating to any pending earlier European patent application [R.36(1) , GL A-IV 1.1.1].

In case of refusal: pending until expiry of the time limit for filing an appeal (= 2m after notification of decision of refusal); no appeal needs to be filed [G 1/09].

Calculation: 2.11.2026 + 2m = 2.1.2027 (Saturday) à 4.1.2027 (Monday, all EPO are open).

 

Question 3.2 (1 point) – Accrued renewal fee EP-DIV was filed today, 5.11.2026. For EP-DIV, what is the due date for the renewal fee for the third year? Enter the date in the dropdown menus (dd-mm-yyyy):

05-11-2026

Legal basis: Accrued renewal fees for years already due in respect of parent application are due on filing of divisional [A-IV, 1.4.3, Art.86(1), Art.76(1)], but may be paid within 4 m. of filing, without an additional fee [R.51(3)]. May still be paid within 6 m. of filing of divisional with additional fee [R.51(3), (2)].

NOTE: 4 and 6 m. run from actual filing of divisional, not from end of month

Calculation: Parent EP-A filed 23.2.2024. Due date for third year for EP-A: end Feb 2026. EP-DIV filed 5.11.1026. Thus, third year renewal fee was due on filing EP-DIV: 5.11.2026

 

Question 3.3 (1 point) – Accrued renewal fee For EP-DIV, until when can the renewal fee for the third year be paid without an additional fee? Enter the date in the dropdown menus (dd-mm-yyyy):

05-03-2027

 Calculation: 5.11.2026 + 4m = 5.3.2027 (Friday, all EPO offices are open)

 

Question 3.4 (1 point) – Accrued renewal fee For EP-DIV, until when can the renewal fee for the third year be paid with an additional fee? Enter the date in the dropdown menus (dd-mm-yyyy):

07-05-2027

 Calculation: 5.11.2026 + 6m = 5.5.2026 (liberation day) à 6.5.2027 (Ascension day) à 7.5.2027 (Friday, all EPO offices are open).

 

Question 3.5 (1 point) – For EP-DIV, until when can the filing and search fees be paid without an additional fee? Enter the date in the dropdown menus (dd-mm-yyyy):

07-12-2026

 Legal basis: Filing and search fee: 1 m. from actual filing [R.36(3); GL A-IV 1.4.1].

Calculation: 5.11.2026 + 1m = 5.12.2026 (Saturday) à 7.12.2026 (Monday, all EPO offices are open).

 

Question 3.6 (1 points) For EP-DIV, in spite of all due care required by the circumstances having been taken, the filing and search fees have not been paid in due time. What are the steps that must be carried out in response to the notification of loss of rights?		Yes	No
A	File a request for a decision		✓
B	File a request for re-establishment of rights		✓
C	File notice of appeal (followed by a statement setting out the grounds of appeal in due time)		✓
D	Pay the filing and search fees	✓
E	Pay the fee for further processing	✓
F	Pay the fee for re-establishment of rights		✓
G	Pay the appeal fee		✓

 Legal basis:

Further processing is possible [A-II 13; not excluded R.135(2)]. Thus, re-establishment is excluded [R. 136(3)].

To request further processing: pay further processing fee (E) and perform the omitted act, i.e. pay filing and search fee (D).

Appeal is not possible because no decision has been taken [Art. 106(1)].

 

Question 4 (2 points) – European Search

TRUE/FALSE – Are the following statements true or false?

 

	True	False
Lack of unity in a direct European application If a European patent application is found to lack unity during search, only the first invention in the claims will be searched. The applicant will then be invited to pay a further search fee in respect of each invention involved, unless the other invention(s) can be searched without extra effort.	✓
Partial search report or a declaration of no search under Rule 63 A partial search report under Rule 63(2) is not treated as the European search report in subsequent proceedings.		✓
R. 63 EPC: no meaningful search possible If the applicant does not reply in time to an invitation under Rule 63(1) EPC, the application will be deemed withdrawn.		✓
Refund of further search fee after non-unity objection For a direct European application, any further search fee paid in response to a lack-of-unity invitation under Rule 64(1) EPC must be refunded to the applicant at their request if the examining division finds that the challenge to lack of unity is justified.	✓

 Legal basis:

1. True, see R.64(1), B-VII 1

2. False, see B-X 1

3. False, case continues to examination

4. True, see C-III 3.4

 

Question 5 (7 points in total) –

European patent application EP1 was filed on 15.4.2025

European patent application EP2 was filed on 27.4.2025

European patent application EP3 was filed on 15.4.2026

  

Question 5.1 (2 points) – Declaration of priority What was the least date on which claims to priority of EP1 and EP2 could be validly added to EP3? Enter the date in the dropdown menus (dd-mm-yyyy):

17-08-2026

 Legal basis: Declaration of priority is due on filing the European patent application but may be made within 16 m. from the earliest priority date claimed [R.52(2), A-III 6.5].

Calculation: 15-4-25 + 16m = 15-8-2026 (Saturday) à 17-8-2026 (Monday and all EPO offices are open)

 

Question 5.2 (2 points) When adding claims to priority of EP1 and EP2 to EP3, the applicant forgot to furnish the application number of EP1. TRUE/FALSE – Are the following statements true or false?	True	False
The claim to priority of EP1 is deemed not to have been made because the application number was missing when this priority claim was added		✓
The EPO will invite the applicant to furnish the missing application number	✓
The missing application number must in all cases be furnished within four months of the filing date of EP3		✓
Filing a certified copy of EP1 is sufficient to remedy the missing application number	✓

 Legal basis:

If file number of priority application was not filed within the 16-month time limit laid down in Rule 52(2), EPO will invite applicant to provide it within a two-month period under Rule 59 (GL A-III 6.5.3).

The date and file number are indicated on the certified copy. Accordingly, providing the certified copy meets the requirements of Rule 52(1). (GL A-III 6.5).

  

Question 5.3 (2 points) Claims to priority of EP1 and EP2 have been added to EP3. Based on the EPO’s standard publication practice, what would be the expected date of A-publication of EP3 (earliest possible publication date, assuming that no request for early publication has been filed? Enter the date in the dropdown menus (dd-mm-yyyy):

21-10-2026

 Calculation:

15-4-2025 + 18m = 15-10-2026 (Thursday) à 1^st Wednesday = 21-10-2026.

 

 

Question 5.4 (1 point) Assume that the European search report for EP3 is published separately in the European Patent Bulletin on 11.11.2026. the application filed the request for examination and paid the examination fee when filing EP3. The designation fee is not paid in due time. Which of the following statements is correct?
A	A fee for an extension of validation state may still be paid with a 50% surcharge together with a valid request for further processing in respect of the designation fee.	✓
B	The application itself remains pending because the examination fee was paid in time
C	If the designation fee is paid on 12.5.2027, the application will be deemed withdrawn. To validly request further processing, it is sufficient to file a letter stating “I hereby request further processing” and there is no need for any other action because the designation fee has already been paid.
D	Re-establishment of rights is the remedy available for the late payment of the designation fee, because further processing is ruled out for the period for paying this fee

 Legal basis:

 A. Yes, see A-III 12

B. No because if the designation fee is not paid in time, the application is deemed to be withdrawn (R. 39(2))

C. No, because to request further processing, the outstanding fee and the prescribed fee for further processing must be paid (R. 135(1))

D. No, because re-establishment is not available when further processing is available (R. 136(3)).

 

Question 6 (1 point)

A European patent application was filed on 20.10.2023. The application was published together with the search report on 23.4.2025.

If paid within the time limit, what was the amount of the fee payable to the EPO to obtain the possibility of validation in Cambodia (KH)? (The fee amount has remained unchanged since the entry into force of the validation agreement).

Select the correct fee amount from the dropdown list.

Answer: EUR 180

Legal basis: OJ 2018, A15

 

Question 7 (2 points) – Intention to grant

For a European patent application filed in English on 5.10.2023, a Rule 71(3) EPC communication dated 4.9.2026 was sent to the applicant’s MyEPO Mailbox.

The text intended for grant is based on:

•  Description, pages 1 to 30
•  Claims 1 to 20 (3 pages)
• Drawings, sheets 1/5 to 5/5

 The application as originally filed contained 18 claims. The applicant paid all fees already due.

 The applicant intends to approve the text under Rule 71(3) EPC today, 5.11.2026. Which steps must be performed?

 Select yes or no.

 

	Statement	Yes	No
A	File translations of the claims into French and German	✓
B	Pay five claims fees in accordance with Rule 71(4) EPC		✓
C	Pay the fee for grant and publication	✓
D	Pay additional fees for the 36th and each subsequent page		✓
E	Pay two claims fees in accordance with Rule 71(4) EPC	✓
F	Pay the renewal fee for the fourth year		✓

 Legal basis:

Acts required in response to intention to grant

•     pay fee for grant and publishing [R.71(3)]
•     translate claims in 2 other official languages [R.71(3)]
•     pay claims fee, if not yet paid at filing under R.45(2) [C-V 1.4; R.71(4)]

Comment:

Re. F: Although the renewal fee of the 4^th year should be paid before 31.10.2026, this is independent from what needs to be done for responding to the R. 71(3) communication.

  

Question 8 (3 points)

A published European patent application is under examination. The applicant is considering withdrawing the application.

TRUE/FALSE – Are the following statements true or false?

	True	False
Any statement of withdrawal must be unqualified and unambiguous. If these requirements are met, it will take effect on the date on which it is received by the EPO.	✓
A withdrawal can never be conditional; it will otherwise be invalid.		✓
The applicant may reply to a Rule 112(1) communication by withdrawing the application		✓
A withdrawal filed before expiry of the time limit for replying to the first Article 94(3) EPC communication results in a 50% refund of the examination fee.	✓
A request to withdraw the application made during oral proceedings is not allowable		✓

Legal basis and comments:

1. True, see E-VIII 8.3

2. False, see E-VIII 8.3

3. The Rule 112(1) communication is a loss of rights communication. Apart from communicating that the application is deemed withdrawn, it may for example also communicate a loss of priority.  

If the application is deemed withdrawn, the applicant can no longer withdraw (E-VIII, 8.1). However, if the priority is lost, the application is still pending and the applicant can withdraw it.

We believe the question intends to imply that the application was lost, i.e. application was deemed withdrawn and have answered the question based on that assumption.

4. True, see Rfees 11(a), RFees 11(b)

5. False, see E-VIII 8.3

 

Question 9 (3 points)

A decision to grant has already been handed over to EPO postal service for notification.

TRUE/FALSE – Are the following statements true or false?

 

	True	False
Printing errors which occur during publication of the approved text can be corrected at any time	✓
If the applicant withdraws the designations of all contracting states before publication of the mention of grant, the application will be deemed to be withdrawn and the designation fee will be refunded		✓
If the proprietor discovers after grant that an inventor was omitted from the designation of inventors, this can no longer be corrected before the EPO		✓

 Legal basis:

1. True. C-V 10 Printing errors which occur during publication of the approved text can be corrected at any time

2. False. The designation fee is not refunded [R.39(1)].

3. False. Rectification (adding or deleting) of the designation of inventor can be requested at any time, even if proceedings have already been terminated at the EPO [A-III 5.5]