All Practice Exams
100+ Free EQE Practice Questions
European Qualifying Examination practice questions are available now; exam metadata is being verified.
✓ No registration✓ No credit card✓ No hidden fees✓ Start practicing immediately
100+ Questions
100% Free
Loading questions...
Same family resources
Explore More IP Agent Exams
Continue into nearby exams from the same family. Each card keeps practice questions, study guides, flashcards, videos, and articles in one place.
2026 Statistics
Key Facts: EQE Exam
Written/modular
Exam Format
EPO EQE Regulations
9 months
Opposition Period
Article 99 EPC
31 months
Euro-PCT Entry
Rule 159 EPC
12 months
Priority Period
Article 87 EPC
20 years
Patent Term from Filing
Article 63 EPC
2025-2027
Modular EQE Transition
EPO / epi
The EQE is the EPO/epi professional qualifying examination for European Patent Attorneys (Art 134 EPC). It tests the EPC and PCT: patentability under Art 52-57 (novelty Art 54, inventive step via the problem-solution approach Art 56), EPC procedure (filing, search, examination, grant, divisionals), claim drafting and Art 84 clarity with Art 123(2)/(3) amendment limits, opposition (nine months, Art 99) and appeals (notice in two months, grounds in four months, Art 108), PCT procedure and the 31-month Euro-PCT regional-phase entry (Rule 159), and priority under Arts 87-89. The main papers are written; the former multiple-choice Pre-Examination was discontinued in 2025 as the exam moves to a modular Paper F plus M1-M4 format (legacy A-D papers held for the last time in 2026, full modular EQE from 2027). Candidates must meet professional-experience and training requirements under the REE.
Sample EQE Practice Questions
Try these sample questions to test your EQE exam readiness. Each question includes a detailed explanation. Start the interactive quiz above for the full 100+ question experience with AI tutoring.
1Under Article 52(1) EPC, European patents are granted for inventions in all fields of technology provided they meet three substantive requirements. Which set correctly states those three requirements?
A.Novelty, utility, and non-obviousness
B.Novelty, technical character, and sufficiency of disclosure
C.Novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability
D.Inventive step, unity of invention, and clarity
Explanation: Article 52(1) EPC requires that an invention be new (Art 54), involve an inventive step (Art 56), and be susceptible of industrial application (Art 57). These are the three positive patentability requirements.
2An applicant claims a computer program 'as such' for organizing a calendar, with no further technical effect. Under Article 52(2) and (3) EPC, how should the examiner treat this subject-matter?
A.It is excluded from patentability as a program for computers as such
B.It is patentable because all software is an invention under the EPC
C.It is excluded only if it lacks novelty
D.It is patentable because calendars are technical devices
Explanation: Article 52(2)(c) EPC lists programs for computers among items not regarded as inventions, and Art 52(3) limits the exclusion to such subject-matter 'as such'. A computer program claimed as such, lacking a further technical effect, is excluded.
3Which of the following is expressly excluded from patentability under Article 53 EPC?
A.A new chemical compound with industrial use
B.A manufacturing process for a known device
C.A purified protein isolated from a natural source
D.A method for treatment of the human body by surgery
Explanation: Article 53(c) EPC excludes methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy, and diagnostic methods practised on the body. The exclusion does not apply to products, in particular substances or compositions, for use in such methods.
4Under Article 54(2) EPC, what constitutes the 'state of the art' against which novelty is assessed for a European patent application?
A.Only patent documents published before the filing date
B.Everything made available to the public before the date of filing by written or oral description, use, or any other way
C.Only disclosures within EPC contracting states before filing
D.Everything published before the date of grant
Explanation: Article 54(2) EPC defines the state of the art as everything made available to the public before the date of filing (or priority) by means of written or oral description, by use, or in any other way. There is no territorial or document-type limitation.
5A European application A1 was filed on 10 March 2024 and published on 12 September 2025. A later European application A2 was filed on 5 January 2025. With respect to A2's novelty, how is the content of A1 treated under Article 54(3) EPC?
A.A1 is not prior art for A2 because it published after A2's filing date
B.A1 forms part of the state of the art for novelty only, not inventive step
C.A1 forms part of the state of the art for both novelty and inventive step
D.A1 is only relevant if both designate the same contracting states
Explanation: Under Article 54(3) EPC, the content of a European application filed earlier (10 March 2024) but published on or after the filing date of the later application is comprised in the state of the art for novelty only. Article 56, second sentence, excludes such Art 54(3) documents from the assessment of inventive step.
6An inventor publicly demonstrated her invention at a trade fair four months before filing her European application. Under the EPC, what is the effect of this disclosure on novelty?
A.No effect, because there is a 12-month grace period for the inventor's own disclosures
B.It destroys novelty only for inventive step purposes
C.No effect, because trade fair demonstrations are confidential by law
D.It destroys novelty unless it falls within a non-prejudicial disclosure under Article 55 EPC
Explanation: The EPC has no general grace period. The inventor's own pre-filing public disclosure destroys novelty under Art 54(2) unless it qualifies as a non-prejudicial disclosure under Art 55 (evident abuse, or display at an officially recognized international exhibition, disclosed within six months before filing).
7In the EPO's problem-solution approach to inventive step under Article 56 EPC, what is the correct sequence of the three stages?
A.Identify closest prior art; determine objective technical problem; assess whether the solution would have been obvious
B.Determine objective technical problem; identify closest prior art; apply could-would test
C.Assess obviousness; identify distinguishing features; determine the problem
D.Identify the technical effect; compare with utility; assess novelty
Explanation: The problem-solution approach has three stages: (1) identify the closest prior art, (2) establish the objective technical problem from the technical effect of the distinguishing features, and (3) ask whether the skilled person would (not merely could) have arrived at the claimed solution.
8When formulating the 'objective technical problem' in the problem-solution approach, why must it not contain pointers to the solution?
A.Because the problem must always be the one stated in the application
B.Because the problem must be commercial rather than technical
C.Because including the solution would introduce hindsight and bias the obviousness assessment
D.Because Article 84 requires the claims to be concise
Explanation: The objective technical problem is reformulated based on the technical effect of the distinguishing features, but it must be expressed without any pointer to the solution. Including a hint toward the solution would amount to an ex post facto (hindsight) analysis, which is impermissible.
9Claim 1 recites a coffee machine with features A+B+C. The closest prior art discloses A+B. The distinguishing feature C produces a measurable reduction in energy consumption. Following the problem-solution approach, what is the objective technical problem?
A.How to make a coffee machine that is novel over the prior art
B.How to provide a commercially successful coffee machine
C.How to add feature C to a coffee machine
D.How to reduce the energy consumption of the coffee machine of the closest prior art
Explanation: The objective technical problem is defined by the technical effect of the distinguishing feature (C) over the closest prior art. Since C reduces energy consumption, the objective technical problem is how to reduce the energy consumption of the prior-art machine, stated without pointing to feature C itself.
10Under Article 57 EPC, an invention is considered susceptible of industrial application if it can be:
A.Sold for profit in at least one contracting state
B.Made or used in any kind of industry, including agriculture
C.Demonstrated to a person skilled in the art
D.Reduced to practice within the priority year
Explanation: Article 57 EPC provides that an invention is susceptible of industrial application if it can be made or used in any kind of industry, including agriculture. The requirement is broad and rarely an obstacle except, e.g., where no concrete use is disclosed.
About the EQE Practice Questions
Verified exam format metadata for European Qualifying Examination is pending. The practice questions above remain available while official exam length, timing, passing score, fee, and administrator details are reviewed.