EQE 2022 results available (main exam)
Today, candidates have received the results letters for EQE 2022.
We congratulate all candidates that passed one or more papers, as well as those that got compensable fails and have the possibility for sufficient compensation.
Please feel invited to post your comments to this blog, preferably using your name or a nickname to facilitate communication.
The Examiner's Reports are also available in the Compendium.
If you want to address specific elements of specific papers, posting comments to the dedicated blogs is suggested; these are available via these links: A 2022, B 2022, C 2022, D1 2022, D2 2022.
Update 7/7/2022:
The statistics have been published!
Pre-Exam 2022: 680 candidates, 96,76% pass, 3,24% fail - note: Part 3, 25 mark, was neutralized
Paper A 2022: 886 candidates, 59,82 % pass, 13.09 % compensable fail, 27,09 % fail
Paper B 2022: 1158 candidates, 77,55 % pass, 6,74 % compensable fail, 15,72 % fail
Paper C 2022: 1400 candidates, 49,14 % pass, 12,07 % compensable fail, 38,79 % fail
Paper D 2022: 704 candidates, 62,64 % pass, 8,52 % compensable fail, 28,84% fail - see below
The high pass rate for Pre-Exam 2022 is due to the neutralization of full Part 3 (25 marks) as well as Q.20 (5 marks). When no neutralization would have been necessary, we estimate that the pass rates would -in view of the type (claims part split into two concise cases) and difficulty level of the paper- have been similar to that of Pre-Exam 2021 (87%) and 2019 (88%).
The pass rate for A 2022 is on the high end of the usual range (50-60% from 2015-2019, with A 2021 being exceptionally high at 74%).
The pass rate for B 2022 is relatively high compared to the usual range (65-75% from 2015-2019, with B 2021 being lower than the usual at 55%).
The pass rate for C 2022 is in the usual range (39-54% from 2015-2021, after an exceptionally low C 2014 at 34%).
The low number of candidates for paper D 2022, as well as the relatively high pass rate for D 2022 (usually between 35 and 55%) can be explained by the low number of resitters due to the neutralization of 25% of the paper of D 2021.
The pass rate for D 2022 is also high due to the neutralization of one full 5-mark question (Q.5) - as there is typically 10-12% in the 5-mark wide compensable fail bin, and candidates in this mark range score about 50% of the marks, this has probably resulted in a 3 %pt higher pass rate).
Compare with EQE 2021 (many more sitters due to cancellation of EQE 2020):
Pre-Exam 2021: 626 candidates, 87,38% pass, 12.62% fail
Paper A 2021: 1905 candidates, 74,38% pass, 4,41 % compensable fail, 21,21 % fail
Paper B 2021: 2005 candidates, 55,26 % pass, 10,02 % compensable fail, 34,71 % fail
Paper C 2021: 1852 candidates, 47,08 % pass, 9,67 % compensable fail, 43,25 % fail
Paper D 2021: 2003 candidates, 85,87 % pass, 5,89 % compensable fail, 8,24 % fail
note: D1-1, 25 mark, was neutralized, so that D 2019 is a more realistic reference (which had a relatively high pass rate):
Paper D 2019: 1133 candidates, 52 % pass, 11 % compensable fail, 36 % fail
For 2019 and the preceding 5 years, see here.
Note that since 2021, the EQE is online and only parts of the exam papers could be printed, the paper could bee seen in a basic pdf-viewer and the answer had to be given in a basic editor (or T/F boxes for Pre-Exam) in a secured locked browser, while until 2019 the exam was based on printed papers and handwritten answers. Further, in the online exams, the Pre-Exam, Paper C and Paper D were split into (4, 2 and 3) parts and additional time was available to compensate for the restrictions created by these splits (in particular, as candidates could no longer freely divide their time over the complete exam length, nor choose the sequence in which they addressed the questions).
Thank you for the congrats!
ReplyDeleteAnyone has template for appeal and reasons, please share
ReplyDeleteI submitted a formal complain on Examination platform issues they answered with a pre-printed communication, they never even read it.
ReplyDeleteeasy
ReplyDeleteThat was so easy!
ReplyDeletePassed my final Paper (C) after passing A, B, and D last year. Here is my takeaway as an American attorney: the EQE is a very challenging test and much harder that the US patent bar. European patent attorneys receive excellent training, and passing the EQE (no matter how long it takes) is a great accomplishment. Also, the exam itself has some elements that you will not be prepared for--there is always some trick, challenge, technical difficulty, translation issue, or unpredictability (e.g., switching to e-EQE from a paper exam). This was the most frustrating part of the EQE, but eventually, you figure it out and get enough right answers to pass. I would like to thank the entire team at Delta Patents. They are the best at training and preparing you for the EQE.
ReplyDeleteThe Examiner's report and the Marking on Paper A in my view have several issues:
ReplyDelete- 5 (five) independent claims were expected. Even the team of DP did not see this coming! Usually in the previous years paper A if you had nailed the main independent claim you would probably have enough marks to pass. Was the majority of candidates able to respond to all the independent claims expected?
- Were the independent claims concise (Art. 84/ Rule 43(2) EPC)? And also unitary (Article 82 / Rule 44 EPC), given the fact that, according to the report, the method claims/product claims do not need to refer to the device claim?
- The splitting of marks between independent claims of similar scope is very unbalanced: the method of making pulp gets 28, while the method of making paper only gets 4; the paper pulp gets 4 while the paper sheet gets 16. Furthermore, more marks needed to be split between independent claims, leaving less marks available for dependent claims and description.
- The report mentions that "[claims for] a method for making paper also comprising all the steps of making the paper pulp (...) were considered to be wrongly formulated claims for a method for making the paper pulp and were marked as a method for making the paper pulp that could only attract a maximum of 22 marks." I had a claim for making paper that was almost identical to the one formulated in the report (apart for making reference to the stamper device) but I got no marks for it.
What are your thoughts on all this?
I totally agree that marking schedule for paper A does not seem right. The paper spent a paragraph talking about how standard stamper machine does not work properly/efficiently and that in order to achieve 90% pulp circulation, there must be a deviating angle. That means you need the apparatus features in your method claim to achieve this effect. So you shouldn't be penalised (or severely penalised) for having apparatus features because that is what your client has invented. He has invented a new method that can exist on all stamper machine. He has invented a method to be more efficient in pulp circulation via the features of the apparatus claim. Therefore, I do find it puzzling that the EPO would advocate broader method claim when the invention would simply not work on standard stamper machine.
DeleteSecondly, the raw material that is lignin-free. This is so unclear and ambiguous. It could be interpreted as the raw material is already free of lignin so there is no need to write a disclaimer. I find that the EPO should really consider this alternative meaning to this. DP has also commented on this and I suspect alot of candidates would have also interpreted as the above.
I don't agree with the EPO solution at all. Its worth raising this with the EPO via appeals or exam sect.
On a side note, lets just stick to the marking schedule itself for now (even though there are major doubts on it)
Method of making paper - you'll get deducted 10 marks for referring to apparatus. 10 marks for not having lignin-free and If you don't have glue, you only get 8 marks. Not having glue seems to be a severe deduction that there shouldn't be further penalisation to the claim. I do consider this unbalanced as it is triple penalisation which shouldn't occur.
5 independent claim? 80 marks on just independent claims. The format (and also the marking schedule) must be in line with previous year. Paper A this year along with its solution is clearly not.
I refer to the Guidelines F-IV, 3.1 "However, while a single set of independent claims according to any one of the combinations (i), (ii) or (iii) above is always permissible, a plurality of such sets of independent claims in one European patent application can only be allowed if the specific circumstances defined in Rule 43(2)(a) to Rule 43(2)(c) apply and the requirements of Art. 82 and Art. 84 are met. The proliferation of independent claims arising out of a combined effect of this kind may therefore be allowed only by way of an exception."
DeleteI agree with Anon's first two paragraphs (with full disclosure that I actually did pass, I just like to know how these things were marked :P) -- I remember reading the paper as that the stamper machine will provide the 90% pulp circulation, so I referred back to the stamper machine because I was thinking otherwise it was erring towards a result to be achieved. (I haven't re-read the paper since, so can't confirm this was implied, but that is what I remember thinking.) Likewise, I remember having a bit of a debate about raw plant material -- the paper said "raw plant material... which is lignin-free", but the "which" can be ambiguous in English. It should mean (under a strict interpretation of English grammar, if I understand correctly) raw plant material = lignin free; however, many people use "which" to mean "that", in which case, the "which" is a classifying clause. If the paper had said "raw plant material... that is lignin-free", I would not have hesitated to put it in the claim. As it was, I debated and ended up just using the term "raw plant material" and defining in the description (as a back-up) that "raw plant material" means "lignin-free" material such as hemp etc, etc. In practice, this would have been fine, as I could have put it into the claim later. Perhaps an argument can be made that I should have erred on the side of caution and included it in the claim language, but due to the aforementioned ambiguity, I was worried about losing marks to clarity!
DeleteOn the marks front, I don't think it's a dire situation having five independent claims. Full marks for the stamper machine and one of the other claims (even the ones only worth 4 marks), plus the dependent claims and the description would be enough for a pass, even if you missed all the other independent claims. I accept that if you miss the stamper machine, it's much less feasible, but there has to be some bar, I guess...
(Mostly) To Anonymous @ 21:13
Delete- if your claims cover embodiments wherein wood is used as the plant material, then you do not have an inventive step over the breadth of the claims, therefore no inventive step.
-as far as I could see, having an angle that deviates from 90 degrees does NOT guarantee 90% swept volume. If an angle of 60 to 82 degrees results in an improvement of 10 to 40%, then 10% improvement can be a maximum of 110/140 = 79% swept volume, and this is just for the preferred embodiments. An improvement of 1% would be 101/140 = 72% swept volume. This really threw me during the exam, because not all apparatuses discussed by the client would in fact be suitable.
- you shouldn't have triple punishment for a single mistake (or indeed double punishment). Unfortunately, if you have many mistakes then you lose many points. For full disclosure, I only got 2/28 for this particular claim, so this is a problem I very much encountered.
- not in reply to Anon, but just a relevant point: I was also completely thrown by the fact that you had a stamper beating process, whereby the process was called beating and comprised three steps called "breaking", "beating" and "brushing". The glue was added "during beating". Did this mean the second step or does this mean any of the steps? If this was a real letter from a client I had a list of at least 5-6 fundamental questions that were unclear from the letter. (see my point about about not all apparatus embodiments fulfilling the 90% swept volume requirement). Overall I scraped a pass by the skin of my teeth, thanks very much to maxing out the marks for dependent claims and description. A horrible paper all round, though I think many of the above comments are criticizing things that are within the spirit of the format of the paper. There will of course be some deviation between years - there were many many independent claims back in 2009 for example. 2-3 independent claims are normally expected, but this is not an iron clad guarantee
I agree with the previous comments. Both the Paper A and its marking have a lot of problems. I really wonder what will be the success rate. Exam was completely different than the previous years. I have made many previous A exams but never had a problem like I had in the exam. It was difficult to decide what are the essentials features and exam was not clear. However, I guess nobody considered this and very harsh marking was done. I didn't get any mark from method claim even my claim was novel. The reason for that is mainly I referred back to the stamper machine.
DeleteAddendum:
DeleteI have since checked the paper and, with the benefit of hindsight, I can see there were clear pointers to going for the "90% displacement" or "1% difference in viscosity" in the claim, although I maintain that these are a little too "result to be achieved" for me to have actually chosen in the exam. I take the mark scheme's point that if the 90% displacement/1% difference in viscosity could be achieved via other means, so the inventors should get some protection for recognising that's how to achieve the desired strength and quality of the paper. But I sincerely doubt that I could have convinced a real-life EPO Examiner that said wording was justified because the invention could not "otherwise be defined more precisely without unduly restricting the scope of the claims" -- they would have told me to reference the apparatus in the method claim because that would give the same scope as the independent system claim, so the scope of the method claim couldn't be unduly restricted! They may even have suggested that the independent claims covering different scopes actually leads to a lack of clarity (yes, I have been told this before)!
The device is claimed in use, there are negative feature claimed. I dont think who draft the Paper claims ever filed a patent application in his life.
DeleteThe problem is that the paper described how normal stamper machine was inefficient and slow so the only way to get 90% displacement is the inventive stamper machine. Such contradictory statements between solution and the paper. When reading paper A, how can one truly broaden out the method claim without referring to the inventive apparatus that allows the 90% displacement???
DeleteThank you so much for the exzellent training! (passed all parts)
ReplyDeleteOne more thing on paper A
ReplyDeleteThe tensile strength is measured using standard ISO, so technically this is known to PSA and does not need to be in a claim. Im not sure why they deducted 8 marks for not having this. If its standard measurements/parameters known by the PSA, it doesn't need to be in the claims
Sorry 4 mark
DeleteFIV. 4.11
that particular ISO is just one method for measuring the property. If other methods are known to the skilled person and would give other results, then the method absolutely has to be there. Believe me, this is one of the lines of attack we use ALL THE TIME in oppositions.
DeleteDisagree here
Delete[026] We have tested the tensile strength of our paper according to the standard method
Delete(ISO 1924-2). Tensile strength refers to the maximum stress required to tear a strip off a
sheet. With a tensile strength of above 1 900 N/m, preferably above 2 600 N/m, our
paper outperforms historical rag paper, which always has a tensile strength of well
below 1 900 N/m.
Without using your own knowledge, that reads that there is only ONE standard tensile strength is measured at.
DeleteIf it says according to ONE of a number of ISO standards then fair enough. But it says according to THE ISO standard so it implies the PSA would know what that measurement/parameter is
DeleteCan someone please enlighten me why the tensile strength has to be defined in the independent paper claim? It was my understanding that paper having intermixed glue inherently has a higher tensile strength than paper that is laminated with glue. Thus, defining the tensile strength seemed like an unnecessary limitation to me, as it would presumably exclude very thin paper sheets (that still have a higher tensile strength than traditional paper sheets having the same thickness). Any thoughts on this one?
Deletehttps://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/f_iv_4_11.htm
DeleteThe EPO are being stricter when it comes to parameters in claims. Not entirely surprising this knowledge was tested in paper A but difficult to deal with if you weren't aware
Anyone got any comments for Paper C
ReplyDeleteThe mark scheme seems harsh this year and I was surprised that one of the claims required two separate attacks totalling 27% of the available marks. I got 0 for several of the claims despite doing full IS attacks.
DeleteVery frustrating!
In my opinion, one cannot complain much about Paper C this year as it is quite tractable (for example, compared with the subject matter last year...). How to attack or which arguments to present are also quite predictable - if one has practiced some old papers and read through the examiner's reports for previous years. The only exception may be claim 6? However, there are more and more discussions in practice regarding computer-implemented methods and non-technical features, so I think it's reasonable to test candidate if he/she knows how to knock down claim 6, and eventually claim 6 only accouts for 9 pts anyway...
DeleteI really do think alternative attacks should be given more marking weight. It is so completely far removed from the real Opposition that it makes it funny that this is the test for it. If you failed paper C, be kind to yourself. It does not reflect on your ability to do a real opposition paper whatsoever and in fact, you'll probably be best to bin it as soon as you pass it. Just ask all your qualified colleagues
DeleteSome advice here please. After years & years of exams, I didn't pass again this time. I cannot continue to put my closest and dearest through all this again. My firm is getting impatient with me. I'm looking for a way out of the whole profession but still want some IP related roles. I know this is not the forum for this but would be open to hear any suggestions. I no longer think the sacrifice is worth it and that also includes the (potential) remuneration (which I never thought as being highly rewarded given the amount of pain and suffering we all go through).
ReplyDeleteHow about becoming an Examiner at the EPO or your local patent office?
DeleteWhy don't you try to stay within the profession as an IP Advisor in a company (industry role). It might not be paid as well as a PA. Still, you will be able to continue to work on IP at a high level and perhaps with more satisfying results and less pressure from your current firm!?
DeleteBeing an in-house counsel at an industrial company provides you opportunity to deal with great variety of IP activities from discussing with inventors about future inventions to participating in enforcement proceedings of your company's patents, with a help of PAs and lawyers.
Delete"IP Manager" roles in industry.
DeleteCareer in industry has a similar, if not higher, remuneration as in private practice. And the tasks are basically the same, only you work for a single client (your company). You don't need qualification (also if being qualified can bring more money in your purse) and the job is practically the same! Perfer et obdura!
DeleteBig universities quite often have got their own IP management teams, try those maybe?
DeleteCan I may be talk you out of this? As a repeater (which I am as well), one does get into a cyclical mistake zone. This can be overcome, but with some effort. I would recommend you to stay patient and not give up, especially if you already have paper D in your kitty. I am writing paper C for the fourth time in 2023.
DeleteSorry to hear that. My advice would be not to give up now, as you probably are quite close (the exact score may not give the correct answer whether you are close or not). Based on the mistakes made in our company earlier, we have concluded that external feedback is crucial. What are the mistakes that you are making and how to remedy the situation. Perhaps the people at Delta could analyse the previous failures to find a pattern that is preventing your from passing.
DeleteBased on my personal experince, you have to find the fastest way that works for you to complete the routine work in the exams, for example how to draft a legible timeline in paper D as fast as possible, or how and when you draft the notice of opposition in paper C. So that you minimize the time spend on nonsense that will give you those "easy" points and maximize the time available on your analysis. After all, the exam is not only testing your knowledge but the methodology that you are using on it. I passed paper C, which was the last missing exam for me, almost a decade after the passing of pre-exam. I'm convinced that the "easy" points saved me, as I scored poorly on couple of claims missing a lot of points.
I have passed all EQE! I is da bomb, init.
ReplyDeleteI think the marking scheme for the EQEs is strange. I got 48 marks for paper B (just in case, I passed all of them, even with this compensable fail). But while still having passed, I scored ZERO marks for claim 1, and FULL marks for novelty(!), dependent claims and clarity, and more than half of marks for the amendments and I/S. I don't want to look at my script again (I still find it too stressful) but from the first glance it does puzzle me how is it ever possible to still pass if your claim 1 isn't what they wanted at all! And if you claim isn't what they wanted at all, how could you get full marks for novelty of that claim? Anyway, it's all things of the past for me now, just wanted to share my thoughts on the results. Congrats to those who passed and don't' be too upset those who failed!
ReplyDeleteTrying not to get too upset but its going to ruin family life again next year.
DeleteFinally passed C and B. I was quite surprised on the low number of points I reached. I had a better feeling on the C part. Nevertheless… it was enough. Thanks to the Delta-Team for the excellent preparation
ReplyDeleteHi everyone, this may be considered off-topic so apologies in advance if it is. Can any UK-based attorneys/trainees confirm that I can still apply to become a registered UK patent attorney based on my EQE results, if I have passed the whole EQE, but with a compensable fail in A, and I have also passed FD1 and FD4? Thank you
ReplyDeletehttps://ipreg.org.uk/sites/default/files/Education%20and%20Qualification%20FAQs_1.pdf
DeleteYes, you are exempted from FD1 and FD3, so you can request entry on the UK register.
DeleteAnyone considering to appeal the C exam?
ReplyDeleteYes, I consider it! I got for my (alternative) attacks on claims 1 and 2 Zero points and I fully disagree with it. I used for them an inventive step attack based on a combination of d4 + d2. For sure, there are better attacks, but giving not a single point on an alternative attack is i.m.o. too hard. And I honestly could need some extra points (11, frankly speaking) ^^
DeleteResults and statistics for 2022 are also available on the EPO website now!
ReplyDeleteI just miss 3 points and after first review I identified that they deducted probably to many marks. However, how do you appeal this without detailed marking and is this a possible rewarding ground for appeal?
ReplyDeleteYes I am. Could you share what your claim (and further marks) is based on. i've done an alternative claim attack but only got a few marks for it which is puzzling me.
DeleteIt seems they forgot to give me points for inventive step attack of feature a in claim 5. Examiners report is only referring to claim 4, but I did another attack in claim 4 which was not considered to be correct. Thus I did not receive the points under claim 4. However, my attack under claim 5 seems to be correct and I assume that i should get the marks right?
DeleteWhat I have gathered so far from reading different blogs is that the implicit disclosure of the rubber bladder from A6 (deriving information from A1) in relation to claim 4 is not clear in the German version. This could be a point to argue that not the same condition for everyone.
DeleteIn the previous examiner reports, they expected only one strong attack and multiple attacks were not marked. In case of multiple attacks, only the worst one was marked. This year they expected two attacks on Claim 4. If one attack is enough for a claim, not sure why an additional attack is needed.
Reproducing a comment from "Pettifogger" on Paper C blog here.
DeleteThe German version of A1 [0018], L23-26 reads
" Wie bei allen Bällen, die aus Segmenten oder Teilstücken (7) zusammengenäht werden, wird eine z. B. aus vulkanisiertem Naturkautschuk hergestellte Gummiblase (6) bereitgestellt, die die Luftdichtheit gewährleistet. Die Blase (6)...."
For the "z.B. = zum Beispiel" (=e.g.) it is not clear (at least in the German version) if it only refers to the "vulkanisiertem Naturkautschuk" only (vulcanized natural caoutchouc) or to the complete term "aus vulkanisiertem Naturkautschuk hergestellte Gummiblase" . This is not unambigously derivable in the German version. This would mean that bladders of other materials are also possible as the "z.B." is not limiting to rubber. In particular, as the following sentence continues with "Die Blase..." (genus).
In the English version the sentence reads "As with all balls which are sewn from segments or panels (7), a rubber bladder (6), made from e.g. vulcanized natural caoutchouc,..." Here it is clear that the "e.g." refers to the material out of which a rubber bladder may be made. (This is also in the FR version the case)
In Brief:
EN - rubber bladder made from e.g. natural caoutchouc
FR - vessie en caoutchouc vulcanisé (6), fabriquée par exemple en caoutchouc naturel,
DE - eine z. B. aus vulkanisiertem Naturkautschuk hergestellte Gummiblase(6)
bereitgestellt.
To have it more clear in the DE version the sentence should have read
" eine Gummiblase (6), hergestellt aus z.B. vulkanisiertem Naturkautschuk"
But this was not the case.
Thus at least in the German version it is not unambiguously derivable that the bladder is out of rubber.
I have no multiple attacks on claim 4. The examiner report simply refers back to a part of the attack of claim 4 under the attack of claim 5 (the inventive step attack against distinguishing feature a).
DeleteWhat is the impact on the attacks taking into account that the fact that in the German paper the bladder is not of rubber (thus broader).
DeleteYes, I also spotted this and have drafted an appeal on this. This would mean that its not clear from the exam whether A6 can be used as novelty destroying document, because the the paper is inconsistent.
Deletebig
ReplyDeleteI am completely shocked by the marking schedule of paper A, especially for the method of making a pulp. Referring to novel and inventive apparatus features does not warrant a deduction of 10 marks. After all, it is what the client has invented and the technical effect is achieved beyond those standard stamping machine. I am at utter lost with this deduction. You can't have a broad claim if there is a previous paragraph that basically says "this does not work well with normal stamper machine". How can you then have a broad method claim of achieving 90% pulp circulation on a normal stamper machine? Doesn't make sense to me.
ReplyDeleteThe lignin-free disclaimer is probably a translation error/language context/interpretation so again, I do not think this should be penalizing candidates.
These are obvious errors in the mark scheme that should be challenge.
I am shocked as well: especially mathematically speaking that deviating from 90 degrees does not exclude 270 degrees, while a counter angle of 90 is 270, which is also in the claim of the solution but also shown by the prior art... That really frustrated me. Did anyone else ever think about this option or am I just stubborn? well, next year, I'll try again for sure....
DeleteThere is a sense of injustice that I failed based on not putting the word lignin free despite as I've misinterpreted to mean it is inherent of the raw plant material. Sigh
ReplyDeleteOh and also for referring back to the apparatus claim which sounds like the majority of candidates have done incl. The model answer.
DeleteMe too really, I try to claim the pulp limiting the claim whit every other positive features but not "lignin" , that was not be taken in consideration.
DeleteI doubt that the Report Examiner ever draft a Patent in his life.
In the Examiner Report the device in also claimed when in use... The first things that a Patent Attorney learns as a child are two: claim the product "on the shell" claim "positive features".
Every year, on particular paper is bananas! This year it looks like paper A. Look on the bright side: Boris Johnson has resigned! PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI have obtained A - 58, B - 59, C - 43 and D - 46 marks. I've just tried to register for EQE 2023 and the software indicated by D that “I will loose my marks if I resit” r6(5) IPREE, which trigger me to look at REE and IPREE again.
ReplyDeleteI think that my A and B will carry weight and provide the compensable fail, even if my C exam next year is also a compensable fail. IPREE r(4)(a)-(c) says that I need 2 Pass (OK so far), no Fail (hopefully for C next year), and total of 200 (which, if I get at least 45 in C next year, will be also fulfilled). Is my interpretation correct? With my scores is it still necessary to sit D? The way i see it now is for honour reasons to get more than 46 marks. Assuming the worst case scenario that I will fail (less than 45 marks) next year, (and no new EQE format in 24), and that I pass C in 2024, my 46 marks will still be OK (available) to pass in 2024? Thank you.
Answer to your first question is yes. Just write C next year. 43 marks in C is quite close too. If I were you, I would definitely file an appeal.
DeleteJust as Anonymous of 9h41 said, just concentrate to get 45 in C next year. I had the same case more or less: A and B compensable, D success with more than 60, and in 2022, I only took C. I got 50 in C, so I'm good.
DeleteAdvise: don't waste time to appeal, just take holidays, and normal life until December, where you will start to work for your C, and do all the C possible till the Exam in 2023. If you do that, you will get 50 like me. And don't worry, you only need 45, by contrast to me. Cheers!
Is there a certificate issued for successful candidates?
ReplyDeleteI added the statistics of EQE 2022 to the blog post, as well as discussion on how the pass rates compare to those of the EQE papers since 2014.
ReplyDeleteIs that now the end of the EQE in this form? Modular form from 2023?
ReplyDeleteSame format from 2023. "The EQE 2023 will be conducted under the current regulations."
DeleteCorrection above: For
DeleteI would have serious concerns about switching over to the modular format from 2023 to 2024 just like that. Transitional provisions are as-yet unknown but IMHO they should be gradual and clear to those who have already entered the profession and are going to be affected (potentially second-year trainees and even third years who will face resits after EQE2023) - the amount of uncertainty is unsettling and the organisational capabilities of the Examination Committees et al. leave something to be desired.
Delete(Avail yourselves of the questionnaire in this regard!)
Paper C seems to be the biggst Killer for EQE in previous years (I know someone who has taken paper C ten times... but he worked in Industry, so his pay is not so bad as a candidate in law firm). With the new model of EQE, maybe the future candidates can pass EQE much easilier and sooner, as it seems that there is no paper C anymore (M1&M2 = paper A&B, M3&M4 = paper D). Congrat on all young candidates who do not need to suffer like old candidates anymore! ;-)
ReplyDeleteThanking all, I now passed after a hell 3 of the last years. I am not of EPO speak. So how can I pass C 2021? My English colleg say me , he doesn’t understood the English speak of that paper and he from smoke down London Town. I laughing. Now this year I thought oh god of allah, it is on beautiful game!! And thank all to him I passed. It is compensible fail but I don’t give rats aunty or how you say that in the cockney tongue of Del Boy, yesss my son !!
ReplyDeleteNice one Sunhil M! With your command of the english language, Allah must really have been on your side when you passed! :-)
DeleteJane
DeleteI remember my first pint
DeleteAnyone has problem with paper B? I think they did not check my arguments for the inventive step? What can i do in this case? I got 43 and i consider to file an appeal.
ReplyDeleteSo I didnt pass this year for the second time. My boss (and firm) does not want to support me and I will probably need to move firms if I want support for EQEs. I do wonder if anyone has had to do this because it seems to be a wide problem especially in the UK where there is a reputation of private practice being unsupportive to candidates who are having to retake a few times. Thanks for any advice
ReplyDeleteNot only in the UK, it is everywhere the same (I'm not in UK). You should find somewhere else to go, since you will not be funded anymore for the exam, and you will never advance in the field. Do not pay yourself for the exam. You need training paid by a firm and support in the job to do it. Better not to present the exam next year and change the firm than stay where you are now.
DeleteGood luck!
In the same boat as you. Thinking of quitting the profession altogether. My pay package has been supressed for the last 2 years because of these exams despite them raising my professional fees to their clients.
DeleteIt is a wide problem in the profession which I never understood. I think the problem is particularly acute in the UK as firms are very quick to remove support from candidates (in some cases even if they fail one or two papers). It shows lack of loyalty to these candidates and UK firms which I don't agree with. You stick to your employees through thick and thin
Deleteohhh...did you guys get supported in UK for EQEs? I'm in DE. My firm has never supported me for EQEs, i.e. I paid the exams and bought materials all by myself... p.s. my wage is below average income in Germany. Is this common in DE???
DeleteThis happened to be a few years ago at a medium/large firm in the UK. I passed 2 EQEs and failed the other 2 EQEs. I then pass 1 EQE the following year and it took me a 3rd attempt to get them all. I had all support withdrawn from me when I didn't pass it first time. I had to pay my own courses, new books, exam fees for years 2 and 3. My wages were suppressed and kept low. I even lost my bonus which apparently was not meant to be linked to exams at all but it was one of the reasons given for not giving it to me. As anom described above, they continue to increase my charge out but didn't increase my wages at all (about 1 to 2%) citing my unsuccessful attempts. I always hear how tough and difficult the exams are in the profession but the system of the whole profession does not provide adequate support whatsoever to trainees.
Deletewhy are they so cruel? Covid has messed the eqe up completely. They should be more understanding.
DeleteIt's a very common thing (at least in the UK in my experience as this is where Im training). I had to move firms twice and now with my 3rd one. They don't care about trainees
Deleteyou have ace everything first time. Its even more unfair on those who have family and children to balance with. This is why I do hope the EQEs change for good.
My firm is much more reasonable in that they reward remuneration and promotion based on billable hours, clients, "actual work objectives". Exams are different assessment. The partners at my firm express many times that Papers A, B and C are so far removed from real life situations, they don't take it into account. Off course we need to pass them but its not be all or end all if you take a few more attempts. They are hard exams and they recognise this.
DeleteUK firms are very cut throat (at least 5-10 years ago). If you don't pass, you won't get much support and you are basically on your own. I doubt much has changed since. I really want all (UK) firms, to change their mentality. Employees offer so much more than just passing exams. Their character, their soft skills including interpersonal relationship, leadership and communication skills are much more valuable than a one-off day performance in an exam.
DeleteIt also comes down to the flexibility of EQEs too. They are completely not open or flexible in their marking for alternative solutions, alternative interpretation of the same text. No two attorneys will draft the same claims no matter how similar the invention is. Fact!
DeleteI truly understand as I had to go through something very similar. I almost quit the profession had it not been for extra support from fellow trainees at that time. Now, I'm a senior associate at a private firm and I always encourage partners not to withdraw support for candidates and support them as long as possible if it is takes a few more times. At least pay the exam fees and give them the time to practice wiseflow.
DeleteThe trainee is feel grateful and supported and are likely to stay on when they do qualify. Our firm has traditionally lost many newly qualified Attorneys. Also, it takes a lot of time and money to look for new trainees again. I will always want to support our current trainees through this difficult journey. The best Attorneys I know are the ones who had it hard and had to retake many times so hang I there and don't give up. Get help and support from others if your firm no longer wants to help you..
Couldn’t agree more. I‘m in an in-house team. Our best attorney really never had the EQE as highest priority. Instead he put internal clients first. Once he had the EQE behind him, he had already amassed respect and experience.
DeleteAbsolutely agree. The best attorneys I know are those who had to take exams more than once. Exams do not define how good an Attorney you are. It's how you work with your colleagues and treat your clients. This is why I will never rate these exams. They are not critical to your job. It's frustrating and annoying that so much emphasis is given go unrealistic situations that will never come up in your daily job. Papers A and C are pretty iterlevlant and even B ain't good. The only one I think helps you in your job is paper D.
DeleteI am in a German firm and they don't support EQE right from the start. All fees, course fees, and holidays for preparation are all on me. We get days off on firms account for the first sitting of the exams. For resitting we need to take holidays to sit for the exam. I basically spent a lot of money and holidays for EQE. I am glad I passed now all papes. Now I am curious if I will get a better salary offer from the firm, which at least compensates the money that I spend on EQE before the end of the yr (I really doubt).
DeleteI'm sad to hear that some UK firms are like this. I'm in the UK and my firm is really supportive of retakers (although I don't know of anyone who has had to retake the EQEs more than once).
DeleteUnfortunately alot of the UK firms do not continue supporting their candidates. Candidates will have to pay exam fees again and they no longer have study leave. I think candidates who have to retake really need as much support as possible
DeleteI would say that an increasing number of firms (in the UK anyway) are rewarding candidates that are not linked to exams. They are based on billable hours, sodt skills, responsibility and experience. I hope more firms start to do this rather than basing everything on exams.
Delete*soft skills
DeleteDon't worry too much. According to EPO's website, "(EQE) tests candidates' knowledge and aptitude to represent applicants in EPO proceedings." (see page https://www.epo.org/learning/eqe.html, last accessed on July 13, 2022 at 15:29 hrs UTC+2).
DeleteHaving failed the Exams A and C multiple times, I can confirm that these statements from the EPO aren't precise. I have successfully drafted granted patents in front of the EPO and revoked at least 6 patents at the EPO completely till now after 6 years of working in Germany. I have almost always put my employer's interests before mine. How come these results that I have achieved not make my knowledge and aptitude good enough for becoming a patent attorney?
These "once in a year" exams with fictional conditions test different kind of skills that do not necessarily make a good attorney. So I would recommend stay kind to yourself and try and pass these exams (no matter how long it takes). This, of course, comes at a cost in that the shallow law firms do not see the value of candidates who can get the job done and may use that as an excuse to not pay you appropriately and at worst, disrespect you.
In the words of Valerie from V:
"It seems strange that my life should end in such a terrible place, but for three years, I had roses, and apologized to no one. I shall die here. Every inch of me shall perish. Every inch, but one. An Inch, it is small and it is fragile, but it is the only thing the world worth having. We must never lose it or give it away. We must never let them take it from us. I hope that whoever you are, you escape this place. I hope that the world turns and that things get better. But what I hope most of all is that you understand what I mean when I tell you that even though I do not know you, and even though I may never meet you, laugh with you, cry with you, or kiss you. I love you. With all my heart, I love you."
Well said Candidate.
Delete"(EQE) tests candidates' knowledge and aptitude to represent applicants in EPO proceedings."
DeleteNo no, these last two years EQE also tested candidates in hardware systems and computer science.
None of the EQEs are actually proper test for patent Attorneys. The closest is paper D.
DeletePaper A. This paper does not teach an attorney to draft for their clients. In my view, it is so out of touch from real life.
Paper B. Again, not how you should amend in real life.
Paper C. The biggest joke of them all. Nothing to do with real life opposition and its just a guessing game to solve a puzzle
I can only speak for the UK but I do think there is a problem with private firms (and some industry) that seems to pull the rug under candidates when the need it most. Some who had to retake probably only needed a little more practice to get them over the line. I do find it disappointing that this is when firms (again, I can only mention my experience in the UK) withdrew their support for candidates.
ReplyDeleteI have just joined a law firm in north London. They have said they recommend me taking the EQE first in 2024. However, they have already said they will not pay the extra fee for retaking any exam. They have recommended me loan firms to pay for the costs as they reimburse only after all exams have been passed. What is weird for us is that they employ someone just to deal with EQE expenses.
ReplyDeleteNo not yet but not surprised your firm in the UK has indicated they don't want to support you retaking. I would try and persuade them to think again otherwise it may be an option to look elsewhere
DeleteHello,
DeleteI work for a firm in Belgium, all the expenses were paid by the firm (including training and seminars to prepare for the eqe and pre eqe).
Except if your starting salary is very high, I would recommend looking for work at another firm.
My firm in UK is a small firm and they are much more reasonable. They don't put heavy emphasis on passing exams as they don't believe the EQEs (papers A, B and C) have much relevance to the tral world
DeleteThey care more about whether you do your daily job and career progress and wages are linked to experience and performance rather than exams success.
Off course, one should still try to pass
The market is red hot in the UK, particularly from legal background so if you're not happy with your current employer then I would suggest looking for moves elsewhere. You are likely to increase your pay package.
DeleteDear all,
ReplyDeleteI am evaluating the possibility of filing an appeal for paper C. For that, i would like to know on how many points was the inventive step of claim 4?
How many points for novelty and inventive step.
Claim 4 with 27 points (11 + 16); but on 11 points are for novelty or for inventive step?
Many thanks
Novelty attack for claim 4 is for 11 marks. I only did inventive step attack and received 14 marks.
DeleteCheck out salted patents blog. There are a lot of comments on claim 4 including possible translation errors
DeleteI am surprised that UK firms actually pay for the EQE exam fees and books for trainees. like one rely said, in Germany we get nothing, absolutely ZERO. The firm i work, which considers itself as one of the leading firm, pay nothing for my EQE and after almost 4 years of work no raise or whatsoever, simply being considered as cheap work force, even I know three languages and I did lots of translation works for them. Fortunately i passed the EQE with my first sit, already quite the job, found a better place.
ReplyDeleteI'm in one of the DE firms and they pay for fees, courses and also retakes. It depends who you work for. I agree that there is a huge difference in training offered in the profession.
DeleteMaybe we need a patent union to fight for equality and fair pay packages.
ReplyDeleteNot sure about the union but we definitely a platform where all attorneys can discuss these things. Not sure how many people read comment section of a blog.
DeleteI am digested at how the whole profession treats their trainee employees. Not supporting them through difficult exams is frankly unheard of in other industry. This whole profession needs a clean and fresh start
ReplyDeleteDisgusted **
DeleteI have just been told that my contract will not be extended due to me not qualifying this year after 2nd attempt. Need B, though I should have passed it last year, but lost 20 minutes thanks to bloody wiseflow. I'm in the UK and looking for another job...anyone know of a good online careers website for attorneys?
DeleteThat sucks. Sorry to hear and I hope to avoid the company that let you go.
DeleteThere are some good options for in-house. Most don't care much about exams (although good to have it off course) and pays really well. Have a look at linkedin or go to a recruitment firm.
@Futu Folbrogo, sorry to hear they let you go, that's ridiculous tbh. I've seen lots of job postings on LinkedIn as Anonymous18 July 2022 at 15:21 mentioned, you should definitely look at those postings for which there are a few in the UK and further afield.
DeleteThank you for those tips. I wished I had appealed the B paper in 2021. 2022's B paper was more difficult. Problem was that the appeal fee was steep and my firm would not have paid. Now I will soon be without a job and the appeal fee looks like peanuts in comparison to no pay. To top it off, my new gas bill came in yesterday :-(. Is it still possible to appeal 2021 decision based on the 2022 results?
DeleteUnfortunately not; the time limit for filing an appeal is one month after the contest decision has been notified (Art 24(2) REE; https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/official-journal/2019/etc/se2/2019-se2.pdf)
DeleteI find it terrible that the EQE thinks its ok to hike up exam fees for retakers. This is contributing to the problem that many firms simply do NOT and no LONGER wants to support their own candidates. EQE hiking up fees is another example in this profession of NOT supporting candidates. It is absolutely terrible and sad to see the widespread bad treatment of many trainees.
Deletewho regulates the EQE. I always found their price exam increases totally unfair. Why do retakers exam fees cost 150 to 600% more than first time sitters. They are the same sets of exams but it clear that there is some financial discrimination against candidates who retake, and the exam fees are an indicator that they are treated very differently.
DeleteWithout opening the can of worms of whether they should do that and whether it's fair, I believe "discrimination against candidates who retake" is the whole point.
DeleteThey want to discourage people from retaking it every year until they eventually pass. The reasoning probably is that, sure, you can catch a bad day once or even twice, but if you fail again the third and fourth time, the odds of you making it the fifth time around aren't great.
It's difficult to justify from a competition and markets perspective though. The public policy reason for reserving rights for EPAs is presumably mainly to ensure quality to protect the consumer etc. The purpose of the exams is to test fitness to practice/quality. What is the purpose of charging different candidates differing fees for the exams? If the purpose of charging the candidates differing fees is anything other that consumer protection, it is inappropriately distorting market competition, in a way that'll likely be to the long-term detriment of consumers. Most competition authorities wouldn't permit that, if push comes to shove.
DeleteThey fail to take into account that peoples circumstances could have changed. They could have passed 2 or 3 EQEs, had a family or moved jobs or had support withdrawn from them. I know people who took EQEs 5 or 6 times and passed. They are one of the best attorneys around.
DeleteI still don't agree that putting exam fees up is the right thing. They will have to repeat and pay the exam fees. That is punishing enough. It makes illogical sense to increase the punishment.
Many other trainees from other countries e.g. Spain, Italy take alot of time to pass EQEs, simply because of language barrier and also because of lack of support and training.
The original point from EQErob remains, there is a complete lack of support, guidance and training for many candidates. The EPO moans about how candidates are not supported by their firms, but then they also add fuel to the fire by unfairly and financial discriminating many able candidates.
As an attorney, I fail to understand the difference in exam fees too. I'm not sure what is the point they are trying to make. It seems to be that Resitters are treated differently from first timers. To me, this already puts resitters at a major (financial and psychological) disadvantage. It needs re-examined. Make the fees more expensive does not necessarily puts off candidates. What it does is it make candidates more disillusioned to the profession. The EPO/EQE needs to make more effort with candidates and not further isolate them from the organisation.
DeleteIts not a good way to go about this. Make EXAM FEES fair for all candidates in any given year.
The same principle must surely apply. FAIR treatment of all candidates. That includes enrolment, exam fees, marking and Appeal. They may be violating their own REE here.
DeleteThis is a bad policy from the EPO.
DeleteTo me, what the EQE are doing to resitters is negative reinforcement. You are not good enough to pass first time so therefore, you will pay more than first timers. Its a strange way to do what they are doing. As many have said, it discourages many able candidates who will be fantastic attorneys. I struggle to understand how papers A, B and particularly C are tested at the moment are relevant to an attorneys real day job.
DeleteI think it should be positive reinforcement. You get a much happier workforce and a much more positive organisation/profession. Time to change this bad policy indeed.
I am not sure I follow you guys' point. Again, I'm not even arguing they should necessarily discourage retaking the exam over and over. But implementing a bit of barrier/break to perpetual resitters is hardly unfair treatment. Most other examination you simply can't resit more than once, period. The EQE lets you do that and is thus more lenient to resitters by a large margin.
DeleteI also don't think you could argue with a straight face that resitting is just not a big deal at all, the best attorney may have taken in multiple times, etc. Look, I get that failing the EQE once or twice doesn't necessarily mean you won't be good patent attorney. But if the EPO started from the assumption that there's no correlation between success at the EQE and success as a representative , then why have an EQE in the first place? To put it differently, if that's your point, then EQE needs to be reformed, but it still wouldn't be an unfair treatment to say "You have x many attempts before it gets more expensive".
I'm not following your logic PK647. Exams take place every year. I don't see why exam fees should be different from one candidate to another. In my view, it does not matter how many times a candidate takes the paper. They are still only allowed to represent in front of the EPO when they pass. So, what is the point of the exam fee hike? There is still the same marking scheme and marking process. I doubt marking a resitter is more work than a first sitter. Consequently, this can only be seen as punishing resitters.
DeleteIf they are serious about helping resitters, then they should focus on support. On another matter, I doubt you find many attorneys who say the current papers (especially A, B and C) are fit to practice tests.
Yes, the EQE clearly needs reforming. Hence, they are rolling out new EQE format. I simply don't think it is correct to charge exam fees differently.
DeleteNobody claims that marking a resitter is more work.The logic behind increasing examination fees for resitters is to discourage repeat resitters, not to reflect the economics of the examination. It's about incentives. It think the perspective is that sure, you can catch a bad day, but if you fail 3,4, or 5 times, you're either not preparing sufficiently or you're just not cut out for this.
DeleteYou can agree with this or not, but discouraging resitters isn't just a side effect, it's the whole point. Nobody pretends that the EPO is trying to help resitters.
Since you insist that the incentive should be withdrawn for the resitters, there is a convenient ignorance on the level of the support each of these resitters receive. Some of them are actively discouraged by their employers to pass the exam. If EPO can oversee the level of support and training the candidates receive, and maybe establish a credit system for the candidate support system existing in different work places, I think no one would have any concerns about increased exam fee. Taking no responsibility for access to training while at the same time disincentivizing the resitters reeks of one-sided approach.
DeletePk467
DeleteWhile I understand about trying to reduce resitting, this approach by the EPO goes against the moral and ethics of the exams.
It should be FAIR TREATMENT for all candidates. That is fair for everyone when they enroll, exam fees, marking and appeal.
The EPO has not been getting this right. Its not fair to financially penalised resisters. Period
@FutuFolbrogo: my sympathy on this difficult moment. I do believe though that there will be offers that suit (e.g. Linkedin offers, etc).
DeleteI read some commenting on "discrimination". The truth being, when results with registration numbers were being published, DP was presenting results for resitters only, which were lower. Although, the universe of resitters changes (some eventually pass and some 1st fail become resitters), no one at that time complained that the results of resitters-only were discriminating them.
In my university, one had 2 exam opportunities at the end of the semester(s), the best of the two would count. However, going to the first exam and scoring 25% or less would exclude you from the second exam opportunity. Another proposal from said university was that when a student would enrol for the second year in a subject, the number of credits of that subject would double, which would limit the number of subjects you could enrol (there was a maximum number of credits); this proposal was however not adopted. Those were measures to push students to study harder and not to fail as correcting 800+ exams in a short period consumed resources.
I never received one single day (not even 1 hour) of time to prepare for the EQE. It was all on my evenings, weekends, Christmas-New year...
I'm not saying I agree with the current price increase of the enrolment fee when resitting for the 2nd+ time, but I think the purpose is to prevent "just enrolling" without seriously preparing. Everyone can have a bad day and it is impossible to make exams with the exact same level of difficulty, but the surcharge makes some sense. It could eventually be modified by, e.g., refunding the part above 100% when passing. Noting that the fees haven't increased for years.
I also agree with PK647 regarding the amount of papers that need to be market (it consumes resources).
Regarding the comment of Candidate 24 July 2022 at 10:12), how can the EPO be expected to "compensate" candidates that had little support and if employers don't want their staff to pass the EQE (they're cheaper without it), the employees should reflect if that is the employer they want to work for).
@Candidate: I don't "insist" on anything. The statement that was made was that hiking exam fees is unfair and discriminates against resitters. I'm saying that's precisely the purpose of it. I'm not saying they should do that, just *that* they do that.
DeleteAs for the support candidates receive, that's probably the one thing you can't blame the EPO for. I'm very critical of how the EPO handles the EQE in general, especially since they went online. But if a firm doesn't train their candidates properly, how is that the EPO's fault?
@Anonymous just below: most other examinations, as Tony pointed out, will simply kick you out you after two fails. I get it, it sucks to have to pay a higher fee if you fail twice, but to keep a bit of perspective, the EQE is almost unique in that you get to resit a third time at all. The classical bar examination, most universities, etc, you'd just be out and looking for another career. Even at a driver's examination they'll send you to a shrink if you fail twice. As far as resitting goes, the EQE is very candidate-friendly in the grand scheme of things.
For the support, I quote the Guide to EQE: https://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/7CB00F5B7FAE24FBC12588870039928F/$File/eqe_study_guide_2022.pdf
DeleteSee, in particular, what the Guide states about the role of the supervisors in the first three years. The supervisors hold a lot of sway. The candidates that fall out of favor with the supervisors forever differently treated and the support is either not provided or withdrawn at an early stage.
Thus, your point of not blaming the EPO is unfounded. It is the responsibility of the EPO to ensure what they provide as "guidance" is followed. There needs to be some level of supervision on this matter.
If they cannot supervise what they profess as the guidance, EPO shouldn't attempt to increase the fee over time.
I'm sorry, what? This is a study guide. They describe what you're getting yourself into. It's not legally binding nor does it make the EPO responsible for how you/your supervisor do the things they recommend. It's like you pretended the EPO was responsible for supervising the DeltaPatents courses or proofreading Visser because it mentions those an option to prepare.
DeleteNo one claimed it is legally binding. I said it is the "responsibility" of the EPO. The point is to check the training support that the candidates receive over time before starting to penalize the resitters. There should be some credit rating system or a reform for keeping a look out for the so-called bad employers to get trained. Simply penalizing the failed candidates is like pulling the rug underneath your feet.
DeleteYeah I don't see it that way. The EPO provides the exam, the rest is up to you. How you study for the exam and what your employer does to that end is between you and the employer. Not the EPO's problem.
DeleteYeah, it's all fair as long as you don't trivialize others' points.
DeleteNot sure how I'm doing that..
DeleteI'm going to wade into this debate. I think it has been clear for some time that the whole of the EQE needs modernising and reforming. The EQE papers no longer are fit for purpose test. Paper C is a perfect example.
DeleteI'm glad to see the EQEs move towards a more modular system. Fees needs to be fair across all candidates for this. There is already a "time out" before you can sit these exams, for example 2 years for pre-EQE and 3 years for main EQEs so there is already a bar upon registering for these exams. You need the minimum experience in the profession to sit them. I believe that it should be one fee for all candidates no matter if they are resitters or first timers. That's it.
Thank you all for your support. On the topic of exam fees, the higher retake fees are supposed to be a deterrent. But the fact you have to pay again, should be deterrent enough! Hence, no basis for the fees to be increased for retakers, in my view. On the other hand, EQE papers are marked by volunteers. Doesn't make sense - why is there no proper funding for the EQE? How can you expect high quality with such little resources?
DeleteWith cost of living crisis and a looming recession in Europe and around the world, it is particularly a cruel moment for many candidates.
DeleteWages in the patent profession and especially for trainees and junior Attorneys have always been poor, relative to other legal professions e.g. solicitors. They get paid much more with less and difficult exams than patents. The amount and difficulty does not match with the wages most Attorneys should expect.
DeleteGoing to appeal papers A and C. Both papers have serious and obvious mistakes I.e. translation errors. Anyone else appealing?
ReplyDeleteMay you list the obvious mistakes in paper C further the one in A1[0018] (famous z.b.)
DeleteYes i would like to file an appeal against the novelty attack of claim 4 with A6. You too? Please, is it possible to exchange our reasons?
DeleteFor me in A6, no rubber bladder, only a ball
yep me too. implicit disclosure of rubber bladder - its not implicitly disclosed.
DeletePlease how do you pay the appeal fee? by credit card online?
DeleteThe fee is 1200€, right?
Mant thanks
he appeal fee can be paid directly on my eqe via "Other payments", 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. Then, the option is available for 10 days.
DeleteRule 9 IPREE: "Pursuant to Article 24(2) REE, the
Deleteappeal fee shall amount to 600% of the
basic fee." The basic fee is currently 200 EUR, as can be taken from https://www.epo.org/learning/eqe/conditions-registration-enrolment.html
Thus, the appeal is 1200 EUR.
I've heard from a few people who have since been added to the list of professional representatives; however, I still haven't heard anything myself - how about you folks?
ReplyDeleteI filed the documents to be entered the day after the results were released and was added on the list on July 13. My guess I was just pretty much in front of the line having filed early, and the line grew. I know of friends who filed the paperwork just a week later and are still waiting..
DeleteToday i recieved the mail with my number :)
Deletei filed it on 11 July and am still waiting... Even if 2000 people file the request, they should be able to enter it in the list within one week... i don't know, what they are doing :)
ReplyDeleteDo you get a certificate or something? My employer (cosmetics) insists they need this for me to get parmanent status.
ReplyDeleteJust an e-mail saying you've been entered in the list. Eventually it will also be in the OJ, and of course it can be checked in the online registry (which you could also print out). You can, however, request an EPO badge which is probably the closest to a certificate you can get.
DeleteMy email said that I would also receive written confirmation in due course.
DeleteI did not see a request for a badge on the form I filled out. Did I miss that? Or do you have to request it per Email separately?
ReplyDeleteIt's a separate procedure, you don't automatically get a badge, see OJ 2021 (10) A79
DeleteHello, please how do i pay the appeal fee?
ReplyDeleteOnline, by the central fee paiement by credit card?
Many thanks
The appeal fee can be paid directly on my eqe via "Other payments", 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. Then, the option is available for 10 days.
DeleteRegarding exam fee support by the firms. I did not have any support regarding fees, books, courses, holidays, etc. Now after passing EQE I received a minimal increase in salary from August no where close to the market price with a excuse being covid related turn over etc. After some discussions, the firm offered to refund only main exam fees and not pre-exam or resitting exam fees. So a one time fee refund only main exam fees. I work for a private firm in Germany. Way more support for German exams is offered by the firm while EQE is completely ignored. I only took EQE and not German Exam so i ended up spending about 5000 euros for fees, books, courses and several holidays for preparation.
ReplyDeleteWell, there are many other firms that are looking to hire EPAs, and hopefully you will find better conditions there
DeleteDon’t forget to declare your expenses in your income tax filing. You can get almost 1600 back.
DeleteIt seems common that the law firms in Germany see passing exams being the full responsibility of candidates. My law firm neither supports EQE nor supports German bar exams.
DeleteWithin this context, if you guys/ladies know people who want to join this field, please advise them to go to the industry first before they pass the exams. At least there they get reasonable wages that suit standard. I have PhD but still get pay less than a new graduate fresh out of university in average...
I have worked in multiple DE firms. In the end, it all boils down to the amount of billable hours you are putting in. Becoming a representative means that the firms have to give you a higher percentage share of the billed hours, which actually does not suit them. Benefits for the firms are more qualified attorneys to show to potential clients and the recently qualified representative can attend the OPs.
DeleteThere is also a problem in many firms in the UK where support is often withdrawn which actually puts the candidates in a really difficult position. They expect candidate to work late in the hours and evening for billable targets to be reached and give very little time within working hours or outside working hours for preparations of exams. The problem is also the fact that the EQE have little relevance in real daily work so you can't even use your skills during normal working hours as practice.
DeleteI do think national and EQE exams have been made as an excuse to pay low wages across the profession in Europe. Even when you do pass, it may take some time and your wage increase is so minimal. A lot of work and extra hours put in for preparation of exams and you easily get paid more if you work in a normal profession without professional exams. For example, I know a software engineer who graduated at the same time as me and now earns almost twice as me. I'm stuck on same wages for 4 to 5 years while my friend have been receiving substantial increases. The exams are a hindrance and does not support fair and decent wages and career progression.
DeleteHi, I am going to file an appeal. Just to be sure, the end of the appeal period is 18 August 2022, taking into account that the 10-day Rule 126 (2) EPC and Rule 134 (1) EPC applies (16 August 2022 is a Saturday and 17 August 2022 is a Sunday)?
Delete*decision was dated 6 of July
DeleteDeadline is August 16, 2022, being a Tuesday
Deletehaha, yes, I looked at July. Thanks
DeleteHi all, I am posting here as I know there are some UK people here who have lost support of their firms... I was wondering if anyone had any experience regarding sitting the EQE while not in the employment of a Professional Representative at the time of the exam (I'd be moving to a patent department in industry) My three years under article 11(2)(a) REE are satisfied. I'm wondering if it's a risky move. The EPO decision on admission to the exam "... will be deemed null and void if, at the date of the examination, the conditions laid down in Article 11 REE are not fulfilled" - but in my interpretation once I've done my three years - that's that?
ReplyDeleteI don't see a risk beyond your own finances :-)
DeleteThere is no requirement that you must be employed at the time of sitting the EQE. If you passed the pre-exam and have the three years, you should be fine.
The "null and void" could be relevant e.g. if you took the pre-exam after exactly two years of employment, then register for the EQE (at which point you do not fulfill the Reqs but you plausibly will by the time you sit the EQE), and then take a leave from work for a couple months just before the EQE (e.g. to study). Then at the day of the examination, you do not fulfilll the conditions anymore and the registration is null and void.
It might be worth prior to leaving getting your period of experience certified by an EPA. I seem to recall that the EPO can request evidence of the experience before entry to the list, although in practice typically do not request evidence.
ReplyDeleteAssuming that you are in the UK and are now yet UK qualified - you should be aware that in the UK IPReg specifically does require that the period of experience is immediately before entry to the register - the rules changed in this respect relatively recently.
Has anyone heard anything about the appeal?
ReplyDeleteThanks
You won't hear anything for a long time. I appealed the 2021 result, and even after chasing like hell, I didn't hear back until February 2022, a fortnight before the next exam session. The EQE delay considering appeals until any practical benefit associated with the appeal is lost, to discourage candidates from filing appeals.
DeleteI filed a formal complaint for IT issues, spent lot of time chatting with invigilator and to the phone for help. What I shoud have appeal? You don have any proof. I think that very few people appealed.
ReplyDeleteThey just answer that system is the same for everybody and thank you