Tuesday, 12 July 2016

EQE2016: The results are out!

The results of the main exam papers of EQE 2016 are out! The scores can be found here: you can find your results by searching for your EQE Registration number (EQEReg) in the list.
According to the document, the result letters will be dispatched as of 25 July 2016 onwards.

The Examiner's reports are also available on the EPO EQE website: Ach, Bch, Aem, Bem, C and D.

A first analysis gives the following statistics:

EQE2016
A
B
C
D
# sitters 847 787 1109 958
no show 9 17 24 42
pass 483 518 455 423
comp fail 77 66 93 108
pass + cf 560 584 548 531
pass 57% 66% 41% 44%
comp fail 9% 8% 8% 11%
pass + cf 66% 74% 49% 55%
average              54             55             45             47
max 95 86 87 86


If you post your comments using the "Anonymous" option, please put your name or a nick name below your message - that makes discussing easier and makes it more personal.


27 comments:

  1. Ok, now that I have passed, can I immedeately apply to be placed on the list for representatives or do I have to wait for the result letter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can apply immediately.

      Delete
    2. You should be able to find the form on the EPO website, as freshly qualified European patent attorney. ;-) Try searching for "Request for entry on the list"

      Delete
    3. Phrased otherwise: do I have to use this form to enter the list or am I automatically entered with the letter dispatched July 25, 2016, from the EPO (official result letter)? And how should I proof my eligibility (as asked in the form) without having the result letter in hands?

      Delete
    4. You have to use the form. As you will know, there is also a nationality requirement for entry on the list that does not apply for sitting the EQE. The form asks for proof of nationality and place of business, not for your EQE results

      Delete
    5. Thanks Peter!

      Delete
  2. suggested EP claim 1 states "a siphon (which would cover any siphon) .... the inlet and outlet openings being arranged such that liquid can flow from
    the inlet opening to the outlet opening via the reservoir". To me this claim is too broad and thus lacks clarity under Art. 84 EPC. The inlet and outlet are not further limited to covcer the siphon of the invention. For example, the siphon of claim 1 is so braod that also covers a siphon for a water fountain and thus the inlet and outlet have different meaning as intended by the present claim 1.

    what do you think?

    I have clearly stated in my claim 1 that inlet is arranged to be connected.. and outlet to be connected to ...However, I think they classified my claim as too limiting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wonder if there will be a noticeable drop in the scores of UK candidates in view of the extreme cold in the exam hall in Bristol.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I was certainly not operating at 100% efficiency in Bristol and will appeal my mark, which was only slightly short of what I needed. I suggest that anyone who feels that they dropped marks as a result of the unacceptable conditions should write to the Examination Secretariate and file an appeal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In my honest opinion, one should not blame conditions of the exam hall if only few points are missing to succeed. I am sorry, but the exam is not about to reach 45/50 points. In my opinion, you should be at least as good as to succeed also in little less comfortable situations.

      Delete
    2. The above comment reminds me of "but can he do it on a cold night in Stoke".

      I would hate to be writing in a cold room. The exam to test the aptitude and knowledge and it is not an endurance test. I cannot think of any attorney drafting an application in his office which is 8°C. Already the time pressure leads to sore fingers, and now try writing with frozen ones. It would be a shame if someone had to retake the exam after all the preparation, just because they were asked to write under subpar circumstances.

      Delete
    3. Good Luck! I certainly feel that having to sit on my hands to keep them warm for 50% of the paper C unduly distracted me! totally disagree with 15:31 anonymous - obviously wasn't there. It was horrible.

      Delete
    4. To Anonymous13 July 2016 at 15:31: I hope you are not forced to do your normal work in a fridge, but can do it at normal office conditions. ANd even more, I hope you are not emplyong people that you force to work in such kind of conditions. In my opinion, the conditions in the exam hall shall represent normal working conditions. Your comment is completely unfair and inappropriate - and it is not at all clear to me why you posted it.

      Delete
  5. Hello

    I'm wondering if you have calculated the average grades for this year's exam? I have the impression that the grades are lower than last year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2016 (see above): A/B/C/D averages: 54/55/45/47
      2015 : A/B/C/D averages: 53/56/43/50
      2014 : A/B/C/D averages: 50/53/42/44
      Averages excl. no-shows

      Number of sitters is approx A/B/C/D 800/800/1100/1000 each year

      Delete
    2. 2016 : A/B/C/D pass rates: 57%+9%/66%+8%/41%+8%/44%+11%
      2015 : A/B/C/D pass rates: 59%+9%/65%+6%/39%+9%/55%+11%
      2014 : A/B/C/D pass rates: 53%+9%/55%+9%/34%+11%/39%+9%
      Percentages given are pass+comp.fail

      Delete
    3. And the averages of candidates that passed (50 or more):
      2016 : A/B/C/D averages 50+: 68/64/61/61
      2015 : A/B/C/D averages 50+: 66/69/63/60
      2014 : A/B/C/D averages 50+: 65/67/60/61
      Averages of all candidates that scored a pass (400-500 candidates per paper)

      Comparing scores and pass rates is not necessarily a direct measure of the difficulty difference: if the pass rates and scores are low, the exam committee reviews the marking scheme and may redistribute points - difficulties in the paper may therefore end up with a lower weight than orignally planned in the marks, resulting in higher marks and pass rate. As an example, the D committee indicated for the 2010 DII paper that they reduced the number of marks associated with Norway not yet being an EPC state and therefore no problems with infrigement/ no chance to stop the competitor: hardly any candidates recognized the issue and of thise that did, only a fraction dealt with it correctly.

      Delete
    4. I was just wondering how they manage to come up with exams that seem so comparably difficult each year. But your theory that the difficulty is adjusted a posteriori totally explains it.

      Delete
    5. Thank you Roel, I did not see your comments before now (holiday season is to blame). I did find D2013 and D2015 easiest when I was preparing, while D2016 was more like 2014 for me - which actually fits with the averages.

      I would definitely have expected Bchemistry to have lower rates this year, I did find it nasty and was expecting to fail.

      Delete
  6. Charlie, I think the 'average' row in the above table contains the average grades for each paper. It would be interesting to see how this compares to other years.

    Anonymous on 13 Jul 2016 at 15:31, I understand that the conditions in the tin shed in Bristol were far worse than a 'little less comfortable', and that this genuinely made it more difficult for many candidates, particularly towards the end of the hours-long exams. It is not clear whether Anonymous at 12 Jul 2016 at 20:32 was aiming for 45/50 points, or whether (s)he would reasonably have been expected to easily get a much higher mark under reasonable conditions, e.g. 60, 70 or higher, but got 49. (S)he and others are entitled to appeal if they believe the exam conditions mean that the conduct of the examination by the exam sec. was not fair/reasonable.

    Both, it will be interesting to see whether the UK marks for each paper are lower or more variable than normal (or less higher than normal!) compared to other exam centres (in which the conditions were arguably more normal).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Averages for previous years posted in reply to Charlies' comment.

      It cannot be deduced from the score table where the candidates sat (or would it be derivable from the regnr?), so I cannot calculate the UK numbers...

      Delete
    2. FYI - the official results letter states that UK candidates gained 1 additional mark per paper sat this year.

      Delete
    3. (sat in Bristol)

      Delete
  7. I am not aware of any correlation between EQEReg. No. and exam centre, but could be wrong. I guess we must wait until around October for the geographic breakdown, unless the information is revealed during one of the appeals that must surely follow. It seems wrong to make people appeal, risk the huge appeal fee, and potentially retake the exam after all the preparation and worry, when the conditions were so obviously unacceptable. I wonder if the EQE people will decide to reasonably compensate the UK candidates in the decisions to be issued next week without the pain of appeal.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Bristol conditions undoubtedly violated the UK workplace 16 C minimum, performance had to be compromised, but I doubt the EPO will be selectively raising marks based on Geography - however, a refund of the exam fees should be a given.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear Roel

    Kyile rey on 16 August 2016 at 10:23 added a spurious link to the message, which looks like spam.

    ReplyDelete