EQE 2021: the statistics are out!
The EQE secretariat has published statistics on EQE 2021:
Pre-Exam: 626 candidates, 87,38% pass, 12.62% fail
Paper A: 1905 candidates, 74,38% pass, 4,41 % compensable fail, 21,21 % fail
Paper B: 2005 candidates, 55,26 % pass, 10,02 % compensable fail, 34,71 % fail
Paper C: 1852 candidates, 47,08 % pass, 9,67 % compensable fail, 43,25 % fail
Paper D: 2003 candidates, 85,87 % pass, 5,89 % compensable fail, 8,24 % fail
A total of 2780 candidates enrolled to one or more main exam papers. 1093 candidates have fulfilled the conditions of Article 14(1) REE, i.e., have passed the EQE and can request to be entered on the list.
The pass rates for paper A and C are within the "normal bandwidth". The pass rates suggest that the marking has been somewhat lenient to "compensate" for the special circumstances of this year's EQE (in particular, cancellation of EQE 202 due to Covid-19; preparation via videoconferencing and self-study due to Covid-19 restrictions throughout the year; first online exam; relatively unknown platform; uncertainty).
The pass rate for B is very low compared to earlier years; as may have been expected in view of the discussions on the paper, e.g., in the comments on the blogs, e.g. as to the deviating character of the paper (without one clear solution direction) and the unusual aspects despite the "same character as before" indication given in advance.
The pass rate for D is very high due to the neutralization of D1-1, where all candidates received the full 25 marks of 25 marks, such that only 25 (20) marks had to be scored of the other 75 marks (25 D1 and 50 D2) to obtain a pass (compensable fail). No statistics is available on the effect of the neutralization, e.g., no statistics is available on the results without the neutralization, so that the effect of the 20% extra time and the effect of the D1:D2 ratio being 50:50 rather than the previous 40:60 cannot be estimated.
Unfortunately, no list of individual sores (marks vs EQEregnr) has been published, nor can it be expected that it will be published as our requests thereto have been denied, so that we cannot perform any analysis on the obtained marks, nor can we present the distribution of marks as we used to do on these blogs.
The published statistics also show pass, compensable fail and fail rates by place of residency and by place of nationality of candidates.
What makes you think marking is lenient? Paper B has the lowest pass rate, Papers A and C are normal. Only paper D is higher due to neutralisation.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why you think marking is lenient, candidates work hard so don't dampen their success. Those that did not pass would not have taken kindly to your unsubstantiated claim that marking was lenient.
Roel or DP. What makes you say its lenient? I be interesting to know the basis behind your reasoning.
DeletePalm
DP only hints towards this explanation in view of the high pass rate, it is quite obvious no offense was meant... Quite disproportional reaction from your side
DeleteThe type of exams we had this result could be even worst... they were horrible with the exam so were lenient with marking.
DeletePapers A, B and C were particularly not well adapted and especially papers B and C which are out of character and NOT in line with previous exams.
DeleteSorry but paper C and B this year was completely out of character. These stats don't mean much. They need to better adapt the papers for future online exams especially paper C.
ReplyDeleteEspecially paper B. That was not like any before.
DeleteAnd having to take all crucial parts of the paper from the screen was crazy!
I doubt whether the B Committee, the Examination Board and the Supervisory Board tried it themselves?
I agree. The wiseflow platform is horrendous. They need to put a few mocks in because I suspect there will be more changes to wisflow. They have to get to grips with the claim formatting issues and copy and paste problems.
ReplyDeleteNo secret many candidates have badly struggled with the IT issues this year. Probably be the same problems next year. I think they need to reduce the content of papers B and C. It wasn't really doable especially for those who EN, FR and DE are not their first language.
ReplyDeletePaper C subject matter wasn't accessible to non mechanical candidates this year. Normally the invention is more simple but I totally did not understand this years invention. I still think a lot needs to change for Paper C. Reading irrelevant prior art docs for C1 at the start cost me an awful lot of valuable time.
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame as I have no doubt many candidates fail because of problems with the wiseflow or IT issues. It shouldn't be an issue for passing exams but unfortunately it is at the moment. The EPO need to significantly change their approach to IT/wiseflow.
DeleteThe spilting of Paper C into 2 parts really didn't help. Allow candidates to print of claims so they can scribble on them.
DeleteIn these statistics, are people that registered for an exam but who did not succesfully participate (no attendance, IT trouble, no valid exam) counted ?
ReplyDeleteEveryone who was enrolled (i.e. had not validly withdrawn on time prior to the exams) is counted, regardless of whether they sat the exam or whether they submitted any anwers.
DeleteEach year there are candidates who, for whatever reason, do not turn up for (some of) the paper(s) for which they are still validly enrolled, and who are therefore awarded a score of 0 for those papers.
e-EQE webpage Decision of the Supervisory Board for the online EQE 2021:
ReplyDelete23.07.2020
EQE 2021 – Important information from the Supervisory Board
"The EQE syllabus and the structure of the various examination papers will be
as outlined in the REE and IPREE and in line with previous years'
examination papers (Compendium)."
e-EQE webpage: Information on the schedule for the EQE 2021 examination papers:
Munich, 2 December 2020
Information on the schedule for the EQE 2021 examination papers
"The pre-examination will have the same syllabus and character as before"
"Paper D will have the same syllabus and character as before"
"Paper A will have the same syllabus and character as before"
"Paper B will have the same syllabus and character as before"
"Paper C will have the same syllabus and character as before"
Clear message to all candidates, are they not?
But: NONE OF THEM HAD the same character as before! Paper B and C the least!
I agree. They need to sort it out.
DeleteAbsolutely. Very poor and need to get rid of wiseflow or allow candidates to print the whole paper.
DeleteAre all grades of 45-49 counted as compensable fails, or only those that have actually contributed to an aggregate score of 200 or more?
ReplyDeleteAny score of 45, 46, 47, 48 & 49 is reported in the statistics as a compensable fail.
DeleteIt is, after all, a compensABLE fail - it allows the holder to pass under the relevant circumstances. Whether and if that mark was used by the holder this year, or will be used in the future, to achieve an overall pass is a completely separate matter.
In many cases, a compensable fail in one of this year's papers won't lead to a pass until sometime in the future; not every candidate who scored 45-49 on a paper this year may have even sat all 4 main papers, or may have fails meaning that some papers will have to be taken in the future. It would be illogical to take these scores out of the statistics, or (incorrectly) report them as "Fail".
Hello,
ReplyDeletemay I add that the pre-eqe group 2020 received a lost of presents such as the pre-eqe and then the neutralization in D-II.
The pass rate for D-paper is by far too high, which is an overcompensation as can be seen from the pass-rate.
Just curious, what is the value of this comment? Seems worthless and sounds like sour grapes.
Deletein my personal view this is a valid comment, since it means there will be generation of EPAs that had no need to pass for a very tough legal test. This is unacceptable as it lowers the quality of the profession. very simple. I guess the EPO did this over-generous compensation out of fear to get a lot of appeal cases, but that is not the right spirit. so I agree with the comment above
Delete"A lot of presents" seems very, very far fetched.
DeleteFirst, the pre-eqe did not exist before 2012. So did everybody else prior to that date get a "present"? The pre-exam is meant as a preparation for the emain exam and should not (and usually is not; maybe with the exception of 2018) a major hurdle on the way of qualification.
Second, the D-I-1 neutralization (not D-II btw) was a response to a _failure by the EPO to provide the right documents to people in time_. No candidate bears any responsibility for that. The EPO was just in a difficult position to provide a fair solution due to their failure. An alternative would have been to just not count the scores of D-I-1 if you scored < 50% in that section and in that case require 50% of 75P to pass - I think that would have been a better solution. But it was clearly not a simple situation.
Third, the passing rate overall is still not high _at all_. If you compare this year for example with EQE2017, the passing rates over all four exams seem very similar (with B 2021 being more like D 2017 and D 2021 being like B 2017; C 2021 being _a lot_ worse than C 2017 and A 2021 being somewhat better than A 2017) What does "by far too high" mean anyways? According to whom? I am 100% certain that this will have no impact on the "quality of the profession".
this is not about myself btw: I did the pre-EQE in 2019, I wanted to write the EQE in 2020 (and thanks to covid could not) and I had 76 points in D without the "neutralization" (which got me to 82p...who cares). I just think that people need to keep perspective...it was a hell of a year to do the EQE, you can believe me that much
btw, you did read: A total of 2780 candidates enrolled to one or more main exam papers. 1093 candidates have fulfilled the conditions of Article 14(1) REE, i.e., have passed the EQE and can request to be entered on the list.
DeleteThat is 39,3 % passing rate...doesn't sound crazy "high" to me ^^
last reply here, but I just checked. So passing rate in 2019 was 38,4%. This is less of 1%-point difference...
DeleteMany are forgetting that wiseflow was (and still is) such a failure, paper DI would not have needed to be neutralised. This is the EPO fault and not the candidates fault.
DeleteI did not sign paper B with my fake attorney name, but I still passed. So, proof that you don't need to have a signature to pass B. However, it probably helps you look "fit-to-practice"
ReplyDeleteFor the main exam, a person has their place of residence as the US? I don't think I have ever seen that statistic reported before in the examiner report. It makes sense, probably someone lived in Europe and then moved to the US (or maybe worked remotely or listed an address in the US).
ReplyDeleteAs noted in several places by the EPO - including here (https://www.epo.org/news-events/news/2021/20210308.html) - "For the first time ever, candidates sat the exam online *at a place of their choice anywhere in the world*".
DeleteI would not have liked to have been that candidate, sitting the B exam which began in the middle of the night (0030 West Coast, 0330 East Coast)
At the East Coast? Oh, poor you. But you could have taken a plane to Munich and take it in a hotel room, then you would not have had any time issues (after the quarantine period solved your jetlag...)
DeleteD paper results are ridiculous.
ReplyDelete91,5% of candidates have passed ;-)
Even Belarus bar exam is more challenging.
Why 91,5% for D? I see only 85,87 % pass..
DeleteAnon has added comp fail to pass.
DeleteAnon has failed to appreciate that the eEQE was a technical failure, comparable to the Willy Brandt Airport.
Therefore the rates which include default max marks for 3 questions arwe actually fair for english speakers. The german, french speakers had an unfair advantage.
By Jove! Belarus bar exam?? Listen old sport, you can get extra marks in the GB exam by shining a laser pointer in the eyes of other candidates!! It's coming home, it's coming home, etc...
DeleteI note that the FAQ page for Entry on to list of professional representatives page has now been updated. Whereas it previously estimated your entry on the list to be 2 weeks from date of request, it now estimates 4-6 weeks or more. Given they actively made the change to the page here it seems the EPO does expect that things will take a lot longer this year.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.epo.org/applying/online-services/representatives/request/faq.html
AM
Has anyone been added on to the list yet?
Delete@Anonymous 13 July 2021 at 13:01
DeleteI haven't been added yet (I filed the request 2-3 days after they opened the flow on wiseflow), and neither the people I know that requested entry in the first week of the flow opening
I submitted my request literally 10 minutes after the first flow was activated and have not been added to the list.
DeleteI just recieved my welcome email from epi. Although I did not hear from the EPO, I guess my entry on the list is near ;)
DeleteHo really? I have not received any email yet .....
DeleteI had a separate issue which meant I needed to contact the legal division. I got a response very quickly which said:
Delete"We acknowledge receipt of your request for entry on the list of professional representatives before the EPO and hereby confirm that your name has been entered on the list with effect of 14.07.2021 and under the following ID number: .... .
A confirmation letter will follow soon.
Your entry will be visible in the online directory of professional representatives after the next update which is carried out twice a month."
I guess it can take 2 weeks to appear on the online list (I'm not appearing there yet).
Why I have not heard any news? Should I worry about that?
DeleteTo those above who have received indication, whether via epi or the legal division, that your request has or is being processed: did you submit with your request a copy of a summons to oral proceedings by reason of which your request may have been fast-tracked?
DeleteIn my case I think it was because I had to contact the legal division in any case (nothing to do with OPs). I would certainly not panic - it is likely to be some weeks (4-6 according to the FAQ) for processing wiseflow submissions, when you will receive an email, and then another half-month before you show up online.
DeleteI (epi) have not added summons for OPs. colleagues who have submitted summons have already been registered within the first days after the flow has been opened.
DeleteIs there any non-EPC national who have heard any news from legal division?
Delete@11:02
DeleteI'm non EPC national and submitted as soon as flow opened, but haven't heard anything. Don't even know if my paper request has been received by the VP-DG5.
I'm also non EPC National, and i have even not received the receipt confirmation from legal division with regard to my post.
DeleteEDIT Anonymous21 July 2021 at 08:39
DeleteI was added on the list today. Could also find me in the online register.
I haven't had any contact from EPO yet regarding my request, but I note that the successful candidates page has now been updated and my name does appear there. I assume that everyone who passed the required exams this year would have been added on that page regardless of whether or not they have requested addition on to list of professional reps (or of the status of such request).
Deletehttps://www.epo.org/learning/eqe/successful-candidates.html
FAQ has now been updated for a second time - it now states that it will take an estimated "eight to twelve weeks" for our name to be added to the list due to the double number of requests received this year.
Deletehttps://www.epo.org/applying/online-services/representatives/request/faq.html
AM
Wow. If only the EPO could have anticipated that there would be double the number of requests this year and prepared themselves in advance
DeleteDoes anybody have news on their handling of the request? Has anyone been added already who did not file summons to oral proceedings?
DeleteYes, I have been added on the list one month ago. I did not file summons...
Deleteno news at all. I think they are in summer break....
Deleteno news for me either.
Deletelooks like most of the people added on the list rn are german nationals
I think that it is a disappointing and infuriating position that we are in, not getting any news at all...
Deletemy colleagues are already in the list, but i am still not. what is going on?...
DeleteVery funny but true comment from 15:26 ! "eEQE was a technical failure, comparable to the Willy Brandt Airport" Well done EQE committee !
ReplyDeleteI think it is good no individual results are published this time.
ReplyDeleteYes, the EQE's committee's claim to a smooth eEQE can be better supported with less details, especially if you could compare same candidates results with 2019.
Equally, there is no point DP analysing statistics this time that do not take into account the varied IT problems that made this year's exam simply UNFAIR.
Hopefully there will be masses of appeals.
Oh I did file an appeal.
DeleteThe rating scale for C feels definitely wrong.
From reading the Examiner's report, roughly drafting the expected attack with very little details already yields close to full points.
CPA is X. CPA says Y. Problem is Z. Both documents may be combined because A and B. The claim is obvious.
That's all, no extensive reasoning required, as long as your solution is expected.
But on the contrary, if you come up with a different CPA, no matter what arguments you bring forward or their level of detail, you just get zero marks. That way of marking is literally calling for an appeal.
D 9/18, Points 2 - 6:
Delete2. It is established case law that the examiners are obliged to allow for fair marking of answers which deviate from what was expected according to the examiners' report but are reasonable and competently substantiated (see inter alia D 7/05, OJ EPO 2007, 378, Headnote II and Reasons 13; D 12/82, OJ EPO 1983, 233, Reasons 3).
This obligation follows from the object of the qualifying examination, which is to establish whether a candidate is fit to practise as a professional representative (Article 1(1) REE).
This principle does not rule out the possibility of an individual answer to one part of paper C being awarded no marks if, for instance, an objection of lack of inventive step is based on a document which cannot reasonably be regarded as the closest prior art or a suitable starting point for the problem-solution approach, or if the reasoning is structured according to the problem-solution approach but cannot be regarded as a logical and justified ground, in a notice of opposition, that would be prejudicial to the maintenance of a European patent.
3. The examiners' report underlines that candidates had to develop convincing arguments in order to be awarded marks.
The Appeal Board cannot find fault with this criterion applied by the examiners in their assessment of the candidates' answers since it is in line with the purpose of paper C.
4. The appellant's answer for claim 3 is sketchy with little argumentation.
The appellant's explanations given on appeal are far more detailed.
Whether or not these explanations reflect the appellant's true intentions when he wrote his answers is irrelevant.
The examiners cannot be expected to read between the lines or fill in gaps in the arguments; they can only mark what is substantiated in an examination paper.
Likewise, on the basis of what is set out in a candidate's examination paper, the examiners can assess whether an answer that deviates from what is expected is nevertheless reasonable and merits some marks.
5. In view of the criterion applied in the marking, the deviation from the expected solution and the minimal argumentation, awarding only 1 mark out of a possible 15 is not in itself evidence of misuse by the examiners of their discretionary power.
This holds true even though the problem-solution approach was correctly applied.
Without re-examining the appellant's answer, the possibility that the examiners took account of other aspects when marking it cannot be excluded.
The Appeal Board notes that claim 3 is not dependent on claim 2.
The appellant's reference in his answer to his reasoning for claim 2 is therefore at least problematic.
6. The appellant has thus not shown that the contested decision is based on serious and obvious mistakes.
In particular, the marking of the appellant's paper does not reveal any misuse by the examiners of their discretionary power.
The appeal is therefore to be dismissed.
No-one has commented as far as I can see on the very low number of pre-EQE candidates this year. Even if the pass rate for 2019 had been lower there is no way there would have been enough extra re-sitters to get it to ~900 (2018/2019 numbers). I don't have any anecdotal information on why people would choose note to take the pre-EQE when they can - is it just a small cohort across the industry?
ReplyDeleteThe reason may be that every candidate that fullfilled the 3 years practice time at EQE 2021 was allowed to completely skip the pre-EQE. Thus, this years number of pre-EQE candidates corresponds to the number of candidates with 2 years but not completed 3 years of practice
DeleteI guess anyone who failed 2019 pre-EQE could skip straight to EQE Main Exam, and anyone who (had they taken it) would have failed the 2020 pre-EQE could also skip to the EQE Main Exam.
DeleteBut that doesn't seem likely to account for the low number (nearly 1/3 lower than normal), especially given the high pass rate in 2019. Unless there were a large number of people who had 3 years experience in 2021, and would have taken pre-EQE for the first time in 2021 but decided to skip pre-EQE and go straight to the main exam?
I guess we'll see next year whether the numbers rebound...
What is the account number of the EPO to which the payment of the appeal fee has to be made?
ReplyDeleteI only find:
IBAN DE20 7008 0000 0333 8800 00
BIC DRESDEFF700
Commerzbank AG
Promenadeplatz 7
80273 Munich
Germany
Is this correct?
Or do i have to register for the online service as described here:
https://www.epo.org/applying/online-services/fee-payment.html
The appeal fee can be paid directly on myeqe, but the option to do so is not activated by default. You need to send an email to helpdesk@eqe.org asking them to activate it.
DeleteYes, the account number of the EPO is correct
DeleteThank you both!!
Delete@Blink
DeleteInteresting, thanks! But how does refund of the appeal fee work if i pay directly on myEQE via credit card? EPO page (https://www.epo.org/applying/online-services/fee-payment.html)says that "Please note that refunds to credit card accounts are not possible."
you should indicate your bank account in the appeal brief
ReplyDeleteAfter the chaos of EQE 2021, I really hope they have sorted the issues for 2022, especially for paper C and the wiseflow platform.
ReplyDeleteFor me they need to allow 20 mins to print the paper. According to EPO, this will now be reduced down to 10 mins before exams for 2022 which is not enough time.
ReplyDeleteThey massively need to sort out timing issues especially for paper C. Also for A and B too.
Did anyone have success with an appeal?
ReplyDeleteIt is *far* too early for any decisions to have been reached by the DBA yet.
Delete4 decisions in cases involving EQE appeals have been handed down so far in 2021. The most recent relates to a candidate's appeal against the rejection of their attempt to enrol in 2020, while the other 3 relate to EQE2019
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/advanced-search.html?filterCaseTypeD=D&dateRangeSelect=%20&dg3MetaData=on&resultsPerPage=100
Of course, i am not talking of final decisions of the DBA but of decisions from the Examination Board.
DeleteIf the Examination Board thinks the appeal is filed in time (admissible) and the reasons are convincing (allowable) – they must rectify its decision within two months from notification of the decision (21.06.21+10d+2m) and order reimbursement of the appeal fee – Art. 24(3) REE
If the Examination Board considers the appeal properly filed in time (admissible) but does not agree with the reasons (not allowable), the Examination Board should remit the appeal to the Disciplinary Board of Appeals (DBA) within two months from notification of the decision. (Art. 24(3) REE)
Yes, I did. I successfully argued that my claim 1 was novel, having been awarded 0 marks for it. This allowed me to pass.
DeleteCongratulations Daul!
DeleteDaul, can you please share your successful reasoning.
DeleteI also had claim 1 novel over D1/D2 and got 0 marks for it because of limitations
As the requirement is to have a claim which is novel and give the broadest possible protection, I'm interested how can a claim which got 0 marks- obviously novel but limited, gain more marks? What are the successful arguments? Thank you
Hi Mariya,
DeleteDid you add "or housefly eggs" into independent claims 1 and 5 ?
"eggs"? No, I did not used eggs :-). I passed B with a good score, I was talking about A cl.1
Deletesorry, I thought you were discussing the B Paper.
DeleteMariya, the mark scheme noted a couple of features which, if present, made claim 1 novel - namely the "for an engine ...1600 deg C". I had this feature.
DeleteFurther, I had an "or" statement in the claim, one half of which defined teh columnar microstructure having a thickness of 25 micrometres and the other half defining the microstructure having stacks of flattened grains (without the 25 micrometres limitation). I argued both alternatives were novel over D2. Per the mark scheme, the columnar microstructure feature provided novelty vs D1.
I should note that my claim was far from perfect - but it was inarguably novel, especially in view of the comments in the mark scheme.
Hope this helps!
Thank you Daul.
DeleteI see. You have some features which I do not have [minimum thickness of the coating, because insufficient thickness provided insufficient insulation (-10 marks); missing defining melting temperature of the ceramic oxide (-3 marks)]
My claim 1 was novel over D1 by the presence of columnar microstructure, and over D2 by the presence of adhesive layer [unnecessarily including an adhesion layer (-15 marks)]
hence with all the deductions got 0 marks. Never mind, next year
Congrats for the successful appeal
The Examination Board did not find my arguments convincing.
ReplyDeleteAs I see it, the only way to have immediate success with an appeal is in the exceptional case where both markers considered an answer wrong even though the marking scheme indicated it right.
Or if the question had an error or was ambiguous and that was only noted after the marking was completed
DeleteOr if both markers forgot to mark one of your questions
Or if you had very good arguments that they did not consider before
Or if many candidates filed appeals to the same topic
Examination Board also issued the original decision, so something special must have been the case for them to allow the appeal.
The Disciplinary Board will now look at it: for them it is a fresh case, so chances may be different, provide your arguments are convincing. However, they only have a limited scope of competence.
Hi! I have received an e-mail from the EPI.
ReplyDeleteApparently, my "name has been entered in the European Patent Office’s register of professional representatives".
However, I have not received confirmation e-mail from the EPO yet. Is there someone in my same situation?
I have not received any confirmation at all...seems to be taking ages...
DeleteYes, ages. I have contacted the EPO to know my official status, but still no answer.
DeleteI have got a confirmation from the EPO that my name is on the list and now it is also visible on the website of the EPO (And I am not German)
DeleteDaniele, did you file an appeal which was allowed and now you passed the EQE?
ReplyDeleteCongratulations !
"Anonymous 1 September 2021 at 17:02" no, I have not filed an appeal. I was just waiting for my name to be on The List. I got confirmation from the EPO that I am, even if the list needs to be updated
DeleteFAQ has now been updated again to state that addition to the list could take 'anything from 12 to 16 weeks in some cases'.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.epo.org/applying/online-services/representatives/request/faq.html
At this rate it could well be 2022 before people - who duly applied for registration in the first 'flow' - are added onto the list. The finalists from last year's cancelled exams sure have had to wait a long time to finally achieve European patent attorney status...
Unfortunately, I have applied in the 1st flow - sent the documents through wiseflow on 30.06.2021 and still not a single reply from EPO or epi... no one from my country, has yet been added - concerns about 5 people. I don't understand what takes them 4 months, its very disappointing :/
DeleteI have just noticed that I cannot sing into wiseflow anymore :D Hopefuly wont be needing it anymore...
I sent the request in the first flow, as you did. My EPI notification arrived on Tuesday and I saw yesterday I was on the list of representatives. Be rest assured that they are working on it - it just takes time.
Deleteto Anonymous 9 September 2021 at 11:01
DeleteYes, I did notice they disabled the karaoke function in WiseFlow ��
I don't know why but they are prioritizing the German nationality candidates. 26 out of 50 German candidates are added to the list (only checked first 50 ones in the list), whereas noone from my country added. It's really frustrating seeing that they are playing favorites.
ReplyDeleteYes I noticed this too. The majority of FR and GB candidates have not been added either so it really looks like they are prioritising DE. Is that fair??
DeleteThis seems to me like an unnecessary comment that is not based on any factual knowledge about the processes in the EPO.
DeleteIt might be reassuring if an explanation for the delay in registrations was given, it makes little sense for the time taken to go from 2 weeks to 16 weeks simply because there are twice as many successful candidates. Some attorneys may have lost work as a result of being unable to act at EPO.
ReplyDeleteWith the lack of communication we are also being stressed thinking that perhaps we didn't upload our passport correctly or some other technical issue (Which was already pointless given the option of using Wiseflow to confirm identity).
Perhaps Deltapatents, with their close relationship with the EPI, could find something out?
Did you not get a confirmation of receipt? And can you not see the status in Wiseflow?
DeleteNote that the FAQ (https://www.epo.org/learning/eqe/faq.html) says:
How do I know that my registration is being processed?
"Candidates will automatically be sent a confirmation of receipt.
Only complete registration requests are deemed to be filed and can be processed. The Examination Secretariat will contact candidates by email if documents are not complete."
By the way, we were told by some candidates that they received their epi membership invoice before they received the confirmation of addition to the list. Did you get the invoice, then you know you have been entered successfully?
But note that the FAQ on entrynon the list (https://www.epo.org/applying/online-services/representatives/request/faq.html) says:
Delete"How long will it take for my name to be added to the list?
With last year’s EQE being postponed due to the pandemic, the number of requests received in 2021 has doubled, so it may take longer than usual this year.
As things stand, this could mean anything *from 12 to 16 weeks in some cases*.
We assure you that we will do our best to deal with your request as quickly as possible and thank you for your patience.
If we have already notified you of a date for oral proceedings scheduled in the coming weeks, your request for entry on the list will be fast-tracked. Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee that your name will be entered on the list in time. Rest assured that if it is, we will inform you immediately so that you can attend the proceedings.
There is no need to contact us for a status update. As soon as you have been entered on the list, the Legal Division will send you confirmation together with your ID number."
The number of weeks in the above EPO's notice was increased already two or three times by the EPO. For example, for some time it was 4 to 6 weeks, then 8 to 12 weeks, etc. The number of issued licenses is very small so far, estimated to be about 10-20% of the number of successful candidates. And 12-16 weeks is longer than three months, which a maximum allowed in Germany by 75 VwGO. It feels like the EPO may continue putting off issuing the patent attorney licenses indefinitely, just because they can and they do not care about following on their own promises or local procedural regulations.
Delete"Did you not get a confirmation of receipt? And can you not see the status in Wiseflow?"
DeleteI never received any confirmation of receipt, nor did any of the other EQE-passers I have talked to. My emails to the Legal Division have gone unanswered. The updated FAQ is the only assurance we have that we will eventually be added.
Roel, thank you for replying.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I can even log into wiseflow anymore, it is now set up for eqe2022.
Obviously we can't all write to EPO asking for an explanation, but it really is about time they offered one. As anon said, the initial promise was 2-4 weeks, now it is 12-16.
You could imagine a small practice where the one registered professional is having to delay their holiday, because their recent qualified trainee cannot sign. Two weeks is fair enough, but 16? And there is no guarantee that this won't increase to 24 weeks next!
I cannot but agree. The confirmation receipt was automatically sent by Wiseflow after "handing in", not substantive at all (whether all the required documents were indeed sent, in appropriate quality etc.). And there is not any status in Wiseflow as we cannot even log in anymore...
DeleteWas 2-4 weeks
DeleteNow twice as many candidates
Gets it to 12-16 weeks
2 x 2-4 = 4-8, not 12-16
Who can explain the discrepancy?
In my lunch break, I clicked on 100 successful candidates, and only 23 had further details indicating they have been registered. That implies it is going to take a whole year to complete the list. Given half the candidates already waited a year to take the exam, some of us could miss two whole years of professional experience!
DeleteI found similar numbers for further sets of successful candidates, around 20-25% that were registered. In reference to an earlier comment, there were indeed a lot of German representatives already registered, but to be fair, they represent about a third of all candidates and I didn't do the math to see if it matches... I would dare to guess their firms are very experienced and told them to add themselves on a random and fast-approaching opposition of the firm to get fast-tracked? In hindsight, I should've done the same :)
DeleteAside from that, I never received a confirmation mail or anything that I successfully did the Wiseflow thing (though I'm sure I sent all required docs), is that normal?
And on a last side note, it's sad to see that they can mark the exams faster than they can register the successful candidates, in my head the former seems much harder than the latter...
i have counted numbers for all countries. in summary, 178 out of 350 german candidates are added to list, whereas for the other countries, only 65 out of 654 candidates are added (total should be 1016 but i think some candidates have no country info, so their names are not shown when i sorted by countries). it can be seen that more than 50% german candidates are added to the list and just aout 10% of the other candidates are added. so, this is clearly not a normal distribution.
Deletehonestly, what I find most troubling is that after almost 3 months only about 20% of the successful candidates has been entered on the list. I don't think the nationality has actually anything to do with it, it may just be that on average the german candidates tend to work more often for big firms and may have OP going on, so they may have asked for expedited proceedures.
Deleteour wiseflow accounts have been disabled, so there is no way to have a feedback regarding our submission. the whole thing is beginning to feel a bit of a sham.
Going through the list as it's currently presented, about 40% of German candidates seem to have been registered, compared to 2% UK and 6% French. For whatever reason, it seems the German language students are being registered faster, unless there is some kind of procedural anomaly with registration or the published list that we don't know about
DeleteApparently everybody will be on the list in wk41 (update EPO)
DeleteThanks for the number crunching, guys. I don't think nationality has anything to do with it, but rather exploiting of the OP. I'm pretty sure they just referred to any OP of their firm that was close enough but not too close.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely something I'll tell my colleagues about when their time is up :)
And I second the "sham" feeling
The day after this post, I sent a mail to the legal division, asking for a heads up on their timetables, and for a confirmation that I filed everything correctly (because I had never received one). Then I mentioned that we've already been waiting for 3 months, longer than it took them to correct and mark. Lastly, I mentioned that upon some people checking the successful candidates with data, the total gave about 24% added, with the German representatives being added at about 50%, and that we wondered what was taking so long
DeleteI haven't received a response to my mail, but a few days ago was notified that I've been added...
How long did it take from your email to the notice that you are added?
DeleteI think about five days. But it must be a coincidence, right? ;)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletesorry my english is bad. I got the approval from legal department (for non-EPC national) almost one month ago, and it said I would get the second letter soon. However, nothing happened till now.
ReplyDeleteLast update from EPO:
ReplyDeleteAll pending entry requests will thus be dealt with by calendar week 41 of 2021.
Week 41 (according to my calculations) should be this week.
And indeed, I (together with two colleagues of mine) received the email from epi with our epi Membership Number.
I'm glad that finally (quoting from EPO FAQ) "EPO has taken special measures to cope with the exceptionally large amount of requests for entry on the list of professional representatives after the publication of the results of the EQE 2021".
Week 41 is next week (11-17 October), according to the wall calendars provided here at the EPO
Deletesee also: https://weeknumber.com/
"Week 41 is next week (11-17 October)"
DeleteReally hoping it's done by then. I sat the 2019 EQE finals and passed all of them except one, and because of that one exam paper I didn't pass in 2019 (Paper A, which I passed this time with 78%) I've waited a full 2+ years more to actually become a European attorney. And I'm still waiting.
I mean, I know I filed all the documents right at my end, but the EPO should at least have confirmed receipt of the documents because you never know whether the Wiseflow system worked as it was supposed to work. Not saying anything for months really isn't great.
This afternoon, I clicked through the whole list of successful UK candidates to see how many have been registered. Of 275 successful candidates... 15. 15 have been registered so far. At least, according to the EPO's website. Does not bode well for having us all registered by the end of the week.
DeleteI think most of us have already received the letters from EPO/EPI. the entry should be finished this week, but I guess they need more time to import the data into the system.
DeleteFinally got my email just now! At last!
DeleteAnd from EPO's website : "the EPO maintains an up-to-date database of professional representatives (updated twice a month)". So i guess it is a matter of time, before they update the data
ReplyDeleteMy name is online, finally!!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete