The Decision is out: No EQE in 2020
EQE 2020 Candidates are currently receiving emails informing then that no European qualifying examination (pre-examination or main examination consisting of papers A, B, C and D) will be held in 2020.
The email reads (emphasis added):
From: HelpDesk [mailto:helpdesk@eqe.org]
Sent: 22 April 2020 09:25
To: [..]
Subject: Cancellation EQE 2020 - Decision and communication of the Supervisory Board
To: [..]
Subject: Cancellation EQE 2020 - Decision and communication of the Supervisory Board
Please be informed that a decision of the Supervisory Board as well as a communication announcing the definite cancellation of the EQE 2020 have been published on the EQE website.
Decision of the Supervisory Board:
http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/cda002e5755d7730c125854c00496e80/$FILE/Decision%20of%20SB_DE_20_04.pdf
http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/cda002e5755d7730c125854c00496e80/$FILE/Decision%20of%20SB_EN_20_04.pdf
http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/cda002e5755d7730c125854c00496e80/$FILE/Decision%20of%20SB_FR_20_04.pdf
Communication from the Supervisory Board:
http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/49492721c255256ec125854c00498eac/$FILE/SB_communication%2020_04%20DE.pdf
http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/49492721c255256ec125854c00498eac/$FILE/SB_communication%2020_04_EN.pdf
http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/49492721c255256ec125854c00498eac/$FILE/SB_communication%2020_04_FR.pdf
In the coming weeks, the Examination Secretariat will contact you directly by email regarding implementation of the decision. We understand that you might have many questions and concerns. However, we would kindly ask you to wait for this email before contacting the EQE helpdesk.
We know that the cancellation of the examination means an extra burden for many of you in what are already very difficult times. We would nevertheless like to take this opportunity to wish you all the best and above all good health and look forward to seeing you at the next EQE in 2021.
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Sincères salutations
Examination Secretariat
European Qualifying Examination EQE
European Patent Office
80298 Munich | Germany
Tel. +49 (0)89 2399 5155 (Mon, Wed-Fri 09.00-11.00 hrs, Tues 14.00-15.30 hrs)
Fax +49 (0)89 2399 5140
helpdesk@eqe.org
www.epo.org
---------
See Decision of the Supervisory Board and Communication from the Supervisory Board of the EQE of 20.04.2020
The Decision is cited here in full (emphasis added):
Decision of the Supervisory Board
The Supervisory Board,
having regard to the Regulation on the European qualifying examination for professional representatives (REE) which entered into force on 1 January 2009 (Supplementary publication 2, OJ EPO 2019), and in particular to Article 3(1) and (2) thereof, has decided as follows:
Article 1
No European qualifying examination (pre-examination or main examination consisting of papers A, B, C and D) will be held in 2020.
Article 2
Given the prevailing, exceptional circumstances, and pursuant to Article 3(1) REE, anyone who so wishes will be allowed to enrol for the 2021 main examination, provided that the conditions laid down in Article 11 REE are fulfilled.
Article 3
Candidates who had enrolled for 2020 main examination papers will be considered to be enrolled for those papers in 2021. The respective fees will be carried over to 2021. Candidates will be able to enrol for additional examination papers subject to the payment of the respective fees. Candidates will be given a deadline by which they can withdraw from the examination or particular papers; if they do so, the respective fees will be reimbursed.
Article 4
For the 2021 main examination only, candidates' answers will be marked either on the basis of the legal texts and document versions in force on 31 October 2019, or on the basis of those in force on 31 October 2020, depending on which of the two dates would give the candidate the higher mark.
Article 5
This decision enters into force immediately.
Done at Munich, 20 April 2020
For the Supervisory Board
The ChairmanFritz Schweinzer
The Communication is also cited in full:
20.04.2020
Communication from the Supervisory Board of the EQE:The Supervisory Board of the EQE – which is composed of an equal number of representatives of the EPO and the epi– met virtually in the following composition:
Fritz Schweinzer epi (Chair), Christoph Ernst EPO (Deputy Chair), Michael Liebetanz epi (member), Telmo Vilela EPO (deputy member). On the agenda were the EQE exams and pre-exams in 2020 and 2021.
On 4 March, the Board had unanimously decided to cancel the exams and pre-exams scheduled to take place in Munich and ten additional European cities from 16 to 19 March 2020. It did so after thoroughly analysing the information publicly available at the time about the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. The main driver of such decision was the need to safeguard not only the health and safety of the nearly 3.000 people that participate and are involved in the organisation of the Exams, but also to preserve the health and safety of the public in general. At the time, the Supervisory Board also informed the interested parties that it would continue to follow-up closely the developments of the COVID-19 and that a final decision on the 2020 Exams and PreExam would be taken and communicated.
Since then, the members of the Supervisory Board, the Examination Board, the EPO and the epi have been actively discussing solutions that would strike the right balance between the legitimate expectations of candidates for the 2020 exams and the abovementioned prevailing need to protect health and safety of all candidates, organisers and the public in general.
In this context and considering that:
- a considerable number of European countries are currently on lock-down;
- all European countries have implemented strict measures to minimise social contact, and that it is currently impossible to predict when they will be lifted;
- European and international health authorities cannot forecast how the pandemic will evolve in the coming months;
- major events scheduled for 2020 have been cancelled or postponed to 2021;
- the EPO and the epi need to ensure adequate health and safety conditions to allow the EQE exams and pre-exam to take place; and
- the EPO and the epi need to guarantee the same basic conditions for candidates from all EPO member states, i.e. that they can all travel to one of the exam venues,
- the EPO and the epi need to guarantee a fair examination with high quality and to avoid jeopardizing the EQE 2021.
The Supervisory Board has unanimously adopted the following decisions:
- No European qualifying examination (pre-examination or main examination consisting of papers A, B, C and D) will be held in 2020.
- Given the prevailing, exceptional circumstances, and pursuant to Article 3(1) REE, anyone who so wishes will be allowed to enrol for the 2021 main examination, provided that the conditions laid down in Article 11 REE are fulfilled.
- Candidates who had enrolled for 2020 main examination papers will be considered to be enrolled for those papers in 2021. The respective fees will be carried over to 2021. Candidates will be able to enrol for additional examination papers subject to the payment of the respective fees. Candidates will be given a deadline by which they can withdraw from the examination or particular papers; if they do so, the respective fees will be reimbursed.
- For the 2021 main examination only, candidates' answers will be marked either on the basis of the legal texts and document versions in force on 31 October 2019, or on the basis of those in force on 31 October 2020, depending on which of the two dates would give the candidate the higher mark.
It is also the intention of the Supervisory Board to give certainty to all involved persons at an early stage and allow for a proper planning of the preparation for EQE 2021.
The EQE Supervisory Board furthermore welcomed and endorsed the proposal presented by the EPO concerning the engagement by the office and epi in a project towards the development and preparation on an e-EQE envisaging the maximum possible use of new technologies applied to the EQE Exams and Pre-Exam. A working group will be set-up for that effect in order to develop proposals and define a plan identifying clear steps, milestones and deliverables towards a full digitalisation of the Exams. In 2021, the Exams will be organised according to the current format.
The Supervisory Board of the EQE
--------------------
Update 5 May 2020:
FAQ on EQE 2020/2021 has been added to the EQE webpages.
Currently the FAQ provides (status 5 May 2020; emphasis added):
EQE 2020 / 2021
I was enrolled for the pre-examination 2020 when the decision was taken to postpone the EQE 2020 (4 March 2020). What does the new decision of the Supervisory Board dated 20.04.20 mean for me?
Fees paid for the pre-examination 2020 (enrolment and examination fee) will be reimbursed to the account/credit card from which they were paid. The process for refunding candidates has started but may still require some time to complete.
Provided you continue your professional training, you do not have to sit the pre-examination 2021 and can enrol directly to the main examination 2021 via the enrolment portal myEQE.
Your right to be admitted to the main examination will only remain valid if you enrol for the EQE 2021. If you do not enrol, you will be required to sit the pre-examination at a later date. Should you enrol to the main examination and then decide to withdraw, your right to enrol to a future main examination will remain valid.
If you withdraw by the 30 September 2020, all fees apart from the enrolment fee will be reimbursed. After the 30 September it will no longer be possible to claim any refund.
I was enrolled for the pre-examination 2020 but withdrew before the decision of 4 March 2020 to postpone. Will I get full reimbursement of the fees?
I was enrolled for the main examination 2020 and my enrolment has now been automatically transferred to the main examination 2021. Do I need to do anything?
I was enrolled for the main examination 2020 but only for 2 papers. I now wish to sit 3 or 4 papers. Can I still enrol for these papers?
I was enrolled for the main examination 2020 for all 4 papers but wish to withdraw from 1 or more papers. Will my fees be reimbursed?
I was enrolled for the main examination 2020 but had withdrawn before the 4 March 2020 – will my enrolment be automatically transferred to 2021?
I was enrolled for the main examination 2020 – will my preferred centre be automatically taken over?
I was enrolled for the main examination 2020 and my enrolment has been automatically transferred to 2021 but I do not wish to sit the examination in 2021.
I was enrolled for the main examination 2020 and was part of the CB-EQE project. Will I automatically be part of the CB-EQE 2021?
I was not enrolled for the Pre-examination 2020 but have enrolled for the pre-examination 2021 (or was about to enrol for pre-examination 2021). I will however have enough professional training for the main examination 2021. Can I enrol directly to the main examination?
If you were already enrolled for the pre-examination 2021, fees will be reimbursed.
I have been furloughed by my employer due to the current crisis. Must I report any changes and could they affect my right to sit the EQE 2021 due to lack of training?
We were informed that EQE 2020 candidates also received an email from the EQE Secretariat with information similar to the information above. as far as relevant for that candidate.
For more information and possible updates/additions to the FAQ, refer to the original FAQ on the EQE website (link).
SHARE:
There's more. Pre EQE will get a pay rise and you are stuck on your pay band.
ReplyDeleteI do not know what kind of practice Anonymous 22 April 2020 at 20:15 has being doing for the exam. But, there is thing where they cannot rely on the internet/electronic resources during the exam and would need to bring in at least one physical book, and therefore would need to manually update the tabbing/annotations on it.
ReplyDeleteFor the main EQE2020 sitter perhaps the most important, we should get the Boards guarantee that EQE2021 will be held!! I do not want study another year for nothing.... really NOT! They need to have a plan B...
ReplyDeleteI doubt they have a plan B. Otherwise they would have applied it this year.
DeleteIt shows the inflexibility of the patent attorney professional examinations. Not modernising it has clearly showed many weaknesses. other professionals exams such as accountants have modernised and can still function reasonably well
Yes?
DeleteThere is a pan-European Accountant profession and examination?
did not know that
Is this really true, these 10 extra marks because the exam hall was cold? Or is this an urban legend? Could not find anything about this.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, they are not deciding anything. It is just the literal meaning of the Article 11 of the regulations: "Moreover, if such a pre-examination is held, candidates who apply to be enrolled for the examination must have obtained a pass grade in the pre-examination." There was no pre-exam held, hence this requirement is void.
ReplyDeleteWhich provision of the regulation was infringed exactly, if I may ask?
ReplyDeleteI realise a lot of firms do this - this is the period they earn some of the money back that was invested in the low-production period when you were learning.
ReplyDeleteBut it cannot be that from one day to the next, the price to your clients goes up by 20-30% when you pass the EQE. The billing is normally based on either a nominal rate or the level of the person signing off.
If you are doing work with little supervision, you should be able to have that conversation with your manager. You should be able to see the billing to the client and make the calculation.
You say you should get marks to help you pass an exam to become a legal adviser. But then you start talking complete nonsense about appealing this decision in an amateurish way. It does not help your case.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to point out, that in addition to the free pass for pre-EQE candidates, this decision also allows for 2020 pre-EQE candidates to be judged based on the legal provisions of October 2019 in their 2021 main exam.
ReplyDeleteThis means, that in addition to be able to pass the pre-exam without ever sitting it, they do not have to buy new books and update their materials for the main exam as every other candidate had to.
This is an extremely unfair decision which massively favors pre-EQE canadidates, in addtition to the free pass for the pre-EQE, while putting an additional burden on main EQE candiadates.
I could not be fed up more with this descision. It is simply outrageous.
Very good point... frankly speaking, this imbalanced decision is a shame
DeleteUnfortunately this does happen at least in my firm. Maybe not the 20-30% hike but they use it as justification. If you haven't got qualifications, they used this as an excuse to suppress your wages.
ReplyDeleteI think this is more of a problem with the profession. Experience hardly counts for much until you qualified. It's a shame because there are so many talented trainees out there but their pay package is suppress because they haven't got a certificate.
As a profession we are too dependent on exams. Maybe time to rethink.
The decision is favourable for pre EQE but there is absolutely nothing substantial for main EQE.
ReplyDeleteNot doing a 4 hour exam is a big bonus. Now we will all be competing against each other next year for resources and most main EQE 2020 candidates this year will be left doing things independently while most firms will switch their resources, focus and support for pre EQE this year to take EQE 2021.
How is this fair on main EQE 2020. It has put them at a disadvantage.
Why have the board created this imbalance. All candidates should be treated equally.
The board needs to reconsider. Compensatory marks for main EQE 2020 this year would make this very fair. As others have mentioned, there has been some marks awarded for situations under exceptional circumstances.
ReplyDeleteI believe this is an exceptional circumstance. The board has already acknowledged this by giving pre EQE candidates a free pass.
No main EQE candidate wants a free pass but would also like some acknowledgment of the exceptional circumstance they have face. Awarding a few compensatory marks would acknowledge this exceptional circumstance.
It would also make it fair across all candidates as others have pointed out.
Imagine that there is also someone that decided to quit the job to increase the chances to pass the 2020 EQE, so no support in any case… The situation is unfair in general, not only in respect the pre EQE candidates. I believe that the Examination Secretariat could have found another solution, given the circumstances…..
ReplyDeleteImagine that there is also someone that decided to quit the job to increase the chances to pass the 2020 EQE, so no support in any case… The situation is unfair in general, not only in respect the pre EQE candidates. I believe that the Examination Secretariat could have found another solution, given the circumstances…..
ReplyDeleteFurther to what anonymous above wrote: sitting main EQE in a cold room (such as at the UK venue some years ago) is still better than sitting no exam at all... and those in the cold room were awarded extra points... the others only lose a whole year...
ReplyDeleteI can understand the frustration of the mEqe candidates but the decision is in line with the current regulations (pre-Eqe is only optional, if there is no pre-Eqe the year before the mEqe then "everybody" can take the mEqe). Law and fairness are often two different things...
ReplyDeleteTake another example. If somebody cannot take the mEqe because the duration of his/her training is short by just a few days. It is extremely unfair but that the law and you would probably do not think that that person shall receive a compensation because he had to wait a year more...
the only thing I wish the EPO to consider... a fair and equal treatment of this year's candidates... and that's obviously not the case in view of the decision taken
DeleteThe situation is different here because all candidates are affected by an exceptional circumstance. So why give one group a lot of discretion but absolutely nothing for the other group.
DeleteThe EPO has in the past applied some discretion via compensatory marks for exceptional circumstances. This is the most exceptional circumstance ever and they are leaving main EQE candidates out. The decision Is clearly unfair and is becoming very divisive and toxic.
having a few days short in your 3year training period is something you are fully aware of when you start the whole thing actually, so completely not comparable to the current mEQE candidate situation. and infact: I am ni this situation, but already know this for 4years by now, so I took peace with that, but now also having another year of delay makes it almost 5years before I will (perhaps) be allowed to sit the main Exams.... so I think at least I should get the confirmation from the Supervisory board that after 5 years of training, I will finally be able to do the EQE exams! I never failed, never missed anything, but still it will take me nearly 5year to become an attorney IF I pass all 4 at once, ... very frustrating!
DeleteIs there any other qualification body in the world which decided not to qualify anyone for the whole year?
ReplyDeleteGCSE, A level students and most universities courses are given passes. Final year medical students and final year nurses are given passes.
Deletemaybe there are also some financial interests... letting pre EQE sitters pass allows the EPO to retain the fees wihtout having any additional effort, i.e. no correction of the papers becomes necessary... and as anonymous above said, letting pre EQE sitters pass does not harm the system, since passing the pre EQE does not give you any permission to represent clients
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, there is a chance that the Pre-EQE fee will be reimbursed or they will be offset with the main EQE fees...
Deletegetting a free pass for free... this is even more outrageous to all those who had to do pre EQE again and paid 800 Euro in total
DeleteYes, I totally agree. I just wanted to mention that I see the chance that with no Pre-Exam this year there is also no legal basis to pay any fee...
DeleteThis is absolutely outrageous. Giving free passes for the pre-EQE, the Boards exploit the situation and attempt maximizing the number of enrolments, i.e. admission fees, with no guarantee whatsoever that EQE2021 will be held, not to mention the hollow “electronic exam” promise.
ReplyDeleteTheir frustrations’ aside, candidates should be resilient and bounce back: sit national qualifications first (if possible), become epi student members, and avoid any binding training commitment clauses from their firms.
The pre-EQE and the main EQE are completely different exams. One allows you to sit another exam and another allows you to practise unsupervised as a European patent attorney. Because of this difference, it is completely appropriate to have different remedies for the cohorts sitting different exams.
ReplyDeleteI am sure that the EPO and EPI wanted to help out both sets of candidates but there is not an easy way to compensate main EQE candidates for this situation. Giving out free passes or extra marks devalues the profession. All these cries for appeals seem like they're coming from people who are bitter and scared they would fail and are desperate for more marks using coronavirus as an excuse. The standard of attorneys passing the exams next year needs to be as high as ever and handing out marks to everyone will undoubtedly lower the standard.
I completely understand, I was due to sit all four main EQE papers this year. I understand that it is hard and I have wasted a lot of revision time. This virus is not fair on anyone, but I am happy that some of my colleagues who would be sitting the pre-EQE have some good news in a world filled with horrible news. Yes this affects pay rises, but even as trainee attorneys we are all paid enough money to survive and are lucky to be in a relatively stable profession.
I am going to use the time between now and next March to make sure that I am even better prepared for the exams. Perhaps those considering filing an appeal to get a small number of extra marks should use that time preparing for the exams?
I generally agree with your thoughts. However, I guess there are a lot of candidates with uncertain income in the next months.
DeleteMy situation is that due to the current situation I am only partly qualified as national Patent attorney (given the outstanding and postponed second exam) and was enrolled for main EQE 2020. Accordingly, at the moment I am unemployed because my status as trainee expired and the chancesto find a position in this situation as a partly qualified national patent attorney only is quite low.
Bad for me.
oh ok - so giving out free pre-EQE passes doesn't devalue the system at all. Many have quite rightly point out why do we need to do a pre=EQE if EPO can just pass everyone. Were they introduce to make money for the EPO?
DeleteThe main EQE already has compensatory fail which no one complains about. They were introduced first many years ago and back then, there were concerns it might devalue the exam system but this turned out not to be the case. Attorneys did not suddenly qualify and start behaving completely unreasonably. Then a few years back, many candidates were given compensatory marks because of a cold room - fair enough. No one complained that these candidates didn't deserve to qualify.
Again, no main EQE candidate 2020 are asking for a pass but a few compensatory marks to compensate for their loss year just like the pre-EQE candidates have kindly received free pass would be fair and reasonable.
The chances are, if you can pass pre-EQE and gain 40-45 marks on EQE paper, you are fit enough to practice.
I think the person with the original post have slightly missed the point.
DeleteI would be happy to sit the main EQE exams next year afresh if preEQE candidates are also able to sit their exam afresh. Yes - we both lose a year but this would be fair on everyone.
Once the board decided to award pre-EQE free passes, then it is right that main EQE candidate expect the same fair treatment for missing out on their exam this year. Compensatory marks is the obvious one but it may not be this discretion. Something more substantial and equal would be appropriate. This does not necessarily translate to free pass or extra marks but something must be given to the main EQE that would satisfy the criteria of being fair for all.
The EPO has created a situation of such unfairness and the pre-EQE guys now have a very unfair advantage to main EQEs candidates this year. You cannot create a system that rewards/award part of a group candidates and not the other.
Totally agree.
DeleteYou cannot have a system that rewards/award and provide discretion for one group but no the other.
The resentment will only grow and many EQE2020 candidates would have this in their mind.
The feeling of failing mainEQE 2020 exams through no fault of their own and now the feeling of being cast aside, unfairly treated with the decision yesterday.
You may want to read the Regulation on the European qualifying examination for professional representatives (in particular Article 24(1)) before thinking about filing an appeal against a decision of the supervisory board.
ReplyDeleteArticle 24
Appeals
(1) An appeal shall lie from decisions of the Examination Board and the Secretariat which adversely affect the appellant, but only on the grounds that this Regulation or any provision relating to its application has been infringed.
[...]
As you can see, after reading the regulations, it is not possible to appeal against a decision of the supervisory board.
In my opinion, the candidates who have prepared for the 2020 exam should at least have the option that one of the four papers should be considered as being passed. Each candidate should have the option which of the four papers should be considered as being passed. This would be fair!
ReplyDelete"No one wants a free pass" - yes they do. Look at the comments - plenty of people want free marks. Presumably, that would also lower the marks needed for compensable fails. It seems that some people want to be let loose on the paying public with a mark of 40%. To be blunt, if you can only get 40% in the EQEs with 4 years of experience and an extra year of preparation compared to a normal year, then you shouldn't be able to file EP applications unsupervised.
ReplyDeletecompletely agree with what Anonymous 23 April 2020 at 10:47 said
ReplyDeleteI can only speak of my experience and my situation, but there is no pay raise for passing the EQE and certainly no pay raise of passing the preEQE in my firm
ReplyDeletePeople are employed as trainees until they pass the national qualification. Subsequently, they are employed as attorneys. EQE is not relevant for the wages. Most of our clients would not be able to tell the difference between a "patent attorney" and an "European patent attorney" and I am unaware that any of them would pay more for somebody, who has also passed the EQE and not just the national qualification
I agree with Graver Tank, the fact that many people here seem to miss a pay raise or that their firm will not pay for additional courses is not primarily the fault of the supervisory board, but primarily the fault of the firm, which is simply unfair to its employees
Can anyone tell me how they deduce that the SB gives a "free pass" to Pre-EQE candidates?
ReplyDeleteMy interpretation of the decision is that it is neither a pass grade that is given to pre-EQE candidates - "no grade" would be more accurate - nor is it free (fees engaged for pre-EQE candidates are not refunded, while being reusable for main EQE candidates). If I understand correctly, pre EQE candidates are called to pass the pre-exam in 2021 too, and, this is the given advantage, they may apply for one or all of the main papers if they so desire.
With the margin of operation available at EPO/EPI to organize EQE in a manner fit to usual standards, I think the decision is rather balanced if the interests of all the parties (candidates, evaluation staff, organization, patent industry) are put in the equation.
@Anonymous23 April 2020 at 11:25
DeleteNo, you don't understand correctly.
You can never register for both the pre-exam and the Main exam in the same year.
In 2021, the requirement of having passed the pre-exam is dropped.
Therefore, anyone who has registered with the EPO and has accumulated the necessary years of experience required to sit the Main Exam - being one more year than is required to sit the Pre Exam - can now enrol for Main Exam 2021, despite not having passed the Pre-Exam.
Candidates admitted to the Main Exam 2021 will never have to pass the Pre-Exam, so not only is it the enrolled pre-exam 2020 candidates who couldn't sit their exam that are admitted to the main exam, but so too are any candidates from previous years who still hadn't passed the pre-exam, and indeed any other candidates who had registered with the EPO and had not yet bothered to sit the pre-exam, or who had enrolled but later cancelled their enrollment for the pre-exam. (Admittedly, there won't be many in either of these latter groups, but they all still benefit and can gain admittance to the Main Exam)
This means that all candidates who enrolled for Pre-Exam 2020 have effectively all "passed".
They do not have to sit the Pre-Exam, either in 2021, or any other year.
If you still think that pre-exam 2020 candidates should get a refund (although they have essentially got what they "paid" for - admission to the Main Exam 2021), then perhaps they should refund all previous pre-exam candidates in all prevous years too, as there is no reason why, on top of being granted admission to the Main Exam without actually sitting the exam, they get their money back too.
"That is ridiculous. You must have noticed the difficulty of the exams varies from year to year. Do you keep track and look down or up to people that passed each of those? Should you look down on yourself because you do not have to read paper documents in at least two languages?"
ReplyDeleteJust to further highlight the silliness of the idea that people would look down on the m2020 candidates if they got compensatory marks, here's a partial list of people who never had to pass exams as difficult as the present ones yet are not looked down on:
- Anyone who passed the exam in a year when the EPO made an error on the paper and gave compensatory marks (i.e., most years).
- Anyone who took the exam in a year when the exam hall was too cold.
- Anyone who passed the exams more than 5 years ago. The exams have palpably become more difficult every year, the 1990's ones were much easier.
- Anyone who passed the EQEs before the pre-Exam was introduced.
- Anyone who was grandfathered in as an EPA.
What will happened with EQE if second waive of COVID-19 pandemic will hit in the next Autumn/Winter?
ReplyDeleteProbability of this event is non zero.
I think that this blog is getting repetitive. There are ways and channels to complain. Begging and complaining here unfortunately brings nothing. Write instead an email to the Secretary, call them and express your feelings or start learning/revising .... We are all greatly disappointed, it is a big BS and it makes no sense, yes, ok. What is next?
ReplyDeleteAccording to someone involved in organising the EQEs in the UK, CIPA receives no funding from the EPO/UKIPO for organising the venue/invigilators/furniture/accomodation etc. for the EQEs. Now I see on this thread that also the people who mark it aren't paid.
ReplyDeleteWhere does the money from the exam fees actually go?
I would expect the SB's decision to create more chaos and deep division within the profession. If they would have been much fairer to both set of candidates, these blogs would be quieter.
ReplyDeleteI'm a main EQE candidate and have the following concerns, which may be useful in an appeal(?):
ReplyDelete- The EQE exam board cancelled the Exams here in the UK before lockdown and before any social distancing measures or government guidance were in effect. Thus there was no grounds to cancel and they did so by making a rash decision without proper guidance.
- Having a lockdown in other countries and EPO exam centers (Munich, Rome) is NOT AN EXCUSE for cancelling elsewhere in Europe. This is a pathetic playground mentality - one child misbehaves so all are punished. I'm sure the EPO would have rather had some qualified attorneys this year than none at all.
- Finally whilst I agree that pre-EQE candidates should be given a free pass (because, let's face it, it's a joke of an exam), I do not necessarily see these candidates as my peers. They are a year behind, and should qualify (in normal times) a year later. In terms of career prospects and competition, EQE main candidates are being held back a year so that the pre-EQE candidates have in effect become our peers. This inflates the market for newly qualified attorneys and this may negatively affect career advancement such as when and who makes partner. Again, I am not blaming pre-EQE candidates because I believe the right course of action has been provided to them. Instead, I am disappointed, and believe an appeal could be brought, because the board has hastily announced cancellation until 2021. As many people have noted, the virus will not be gone by March 2021 and with pre-quiz voided, you only need to set aside 3 days to get the main EQES done. Why can't these be in Aug/Sept/Oct/Nov when restrictions will no doubt be lifted?! If they are worried about liability issues we can sign a waiver!
I just think postponing until next year is a complete farce and has immeasurably damaged my career prospects.
The Supervisory Board just did what was clearly in their jurisdiction defined by REE. Compensating main EQE candidates, reducing number of Papers, and other similar actions may be not so simple for them due to REE.
ReplyDeleteAppealing is not possible: the Supervisory Board's decisions are not appealable, in difference to the Examination Board's and Secretariat's.
Overall, there is a EPO/EPI decision not to qualify anyone, and it may come close to violating the national and EU laws on the market abuse by preventing competition. But the problem is not in the Supervisory Board, but in the REE and IPREE, and in the fact that in reality qualified EPAs more win than lose, when the EQE is canceled and they do not have to compete with several hundred newly qualified EPAs.
They clearly need to amend the rules/change something because if we can't take 2021 EQE exam - you are talking about 3 years worth of candidates are stuck at the mainEQE stage (assuming we are following the precedent of the decision by allowing pre-EQE free passes).
DeleteThat cannot happen next year.
In which country do get get a pay rise after passing the pre EQE?
ReplyDeleteThe decision is so disappointing. I really cannot understand why it is not possible to reschedule the EQE to September. It should be possible writing the exam under special conditions (keeping distance to each other, wearing masks and using desinfection). Venues could be also provided in each member state. I think epo and epi chose a too simple way by just cancelling the EQE. They should just be a little bit more innovative. There is always a solution if you want to find one. Nobody considered the impact on the candidates by losing one year.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anonymous 23 April 2020 17:31. The EPO should be more prepared for this situation. We should be able to take the test locally in small groups. As a rare exception, we could take the EQE at home by mail (or online via email). Planning a Paper A for September, and then Papers C-D for Oct and/or Nov to give the graders more time and space it out. Tests on weekends would also be an option. I am not saying any of these options are perfect, but there are other ways to make this work. Making everyone wait another year when we know the the virus could still be around in March 2021 tells me that the EPO wanted to "kick the can down the road" and let it be some else's problem. If the EPO wants to lead, it should lead by example and solve issues now.
DeleteWhat about re-sitters of the mEQE? Those who already have 200 points in total and who only needed less than 5 points at one exam to fully qualify in 2020? Why can’t anything be done for them? Is that fair to delay their qualification for 2 more years (time between publications of the results in 2019 and 2021) because they only miss less than 5 points out of 400? Would these points really make them better suited for practice?
ReplyDeleteI understand rules exist for a reason. But if these rules can suddenly be bent to apply ‘reason’, wouldn’t it be fair to apply ‘reason’ for all the candidates?
Just a thought towards awarding extra marks, e.g. 5 marks for main EQE candidates... the number of candidates who will pass due to these 5 extra marks should be comparatively small as many will pass without the help of these marks, and many others will fail, since these 5 extra marks are still not sufficient... in other words, the overall effect on the system is comparatively small, so there is no devaluation, but it would be an extremely conciliatory gesture
ReplyDeleteI agree. I don't see how a discretionary 5 marks will all of a sudden bring the whole examination into disrepute.
DeleteCandidates still have to achieve around 45 marks which are still hard to achieve in an EQE paper.
The discretion would be an absolutely good gesture for mEQE 2020 this year.
Other professions have found ways to ease the burden on affected candidates and show understand and followed through with good gesture.
ReplyDeleteI don’t understand all this talking about fairness and compensation. Life is not fair, none of what’s happening is fair, no compensation is expected for the lives lost, the hopes and dreames crushed, the economical/psichological/practical difficulties faced by a huge percentage of the world population right now.
ReplyDeleteI urge all of you to realize that if not being able to take the EQE this year and (in some cases) qualify is the worst that happens to any of us in this crazy times, well we should really count ourselves lucky!
That being said, this is an impossible situation, with a pletora of ramifications and consequences for all those involved. But we have to accept that cancellation was the only viable solution, and the decision to dispense people with passing the pre-EQE and allowing people to answer based on 2019 legal cut-off were the only feasible things to do in order to somewhat alleviate the burden of this hurdle.
Instead of complaining and asking for the impossible, we should perhaps focus on asking the EPO and the whole organizing committee to take all steps necessary to ensure something like this does not happen again next year, by booking several venues per country, having fewer people per room, etc. And to clarify asap the particulars of EQE2021 and enrollment .
Yeah that won't happen. No one predicted coronavirus this year. That's why its called "exceptional circumstances"
Delete"But we have to accept that cancellation was the only viable solution" - sorry, but no. They would easily find other viable solutions if qualified EPAs in average did not benefit from preventing new qualifications.
DeleteYes but there is also an argument that the EPO should consider people where EPO languages are not their first language
ReplyDeleteThe EPO has given an extra 30 mins per paper so I think this would cover people with learning difficulties.
Yes but there is already 30 mins in place to account for this. Candidates who's first language is not an EPO language is also accounted for.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult for EPO to take into account learning difficulties as these are professional exams and you are expected to reach a certain standard.
ReplyDeleteThere is already 30 minutes extra per paper. If they lower grade boundaries or give extra time for these candidates with difficulties then it would demand extra time as we all struggle with the time of the exam.
It is tough but then you have chosen it like everybody else.
Everybody would be demanding extra time as everybody would have some form of difficulties. I think its wise that the EPO has given everyone an extra 30 mins and we should leave it as that.
ReplyDeleteDyslexia, dyspraxia are not necessarily recognised across the whole of European states as a disability. So the EPO cannot award some candidates with disabilities some extra time or lowered grades and not others.
ReplyDeleteThe 30 mins does account for a bit of this but everyone would struggle for time as these are tough exams. Practice past papers are the best way.
This is the problem with the profession. The profession is far to reliant on exams so any disruption has a huge impact on trainees. There are other ways and means for assessing candidates. Many other professions have done this.
ReplyDeleteI would urge the EPO to reconsider the whole examination process and not to just rely entirely on exams but find other ways of assessments.
@Anonymous 10:04
ReplyDeletewhat won't happen?
exceptional circumstances are those that led to the cancellation of EQE2020.
now we know our lives will be very different for a long time, all sorts of things have to be reorganized. hence also organization of eqe2021 needs to be adjusted in such a way that won't led to cancellation if a new wave of cases would hit next winter. there is time from now to next march to at least try to book more venues or more rooms in each venue.
I agree, but to find double, triple the venues across the whole of Europe and provide funding for all of that won't happen. If a second wave hit, the most likely outcome is another cancellation.
DeleteWhat they need to do is change the assessments.
DeleteIf a second wave is hit, no one is allowed to travel again so we basically end up in the same position.
DeleteAlternative assessments are clearly not going to be ready by 2021. They haven't even tested it so not sure how they can roll out to all candidates stuck at home in 2021.
What is to be understood with these decisions of the board is as follows:
ReplyDelete1-the pre-exam will be definitely canceled.
2-from 2022, the papers of the main exam will be transformed into multiple choice questions to be answered online.
So the board takes advantage of this crisis to bring necessary corrections to this EEQ exam.
The 7 years old pre-exam is found to be useless.
The main exam had become with time just an artificial way to block candidates.
No protection against numerous papers and jury errors. A surrealistic time management expectation.
Legal basis with no limit, hence ridiculousness of attending the exam with suitcases of documents.
A far relationship with real life practice, so no one knows what skills is measured by the exam.
In short, a very expensive lottery game.
"The main exam had become with time just an artificial way to block candidates.
DeleteNo protection against numerous papers and jury errors. A surrealistic time management expectation.
Legal basis with no limit, hence ridiculousness of attending the exam with suitcases of documents.
A far relationship with real life practice, so no one knows what skills is measured by the exam."
- Absolutely agree!
"The main exam had become with time just an artificial way to block candidates."
DeleteReally? As EQE marker for over ten years I have seen hundreds of papers and really bad answers and candidates still getting around 35 to 40 points.
It is not about blocking candidates but it's about protecting the public from these people.
"As EQE marker for over ten years" - and which papers did you mark and are you from EPO or EPI?
DeleteDear EQE Marker,
DeleteIt's so comfortable to be the judge forever and block people.
Each marker should retake each paper before marking it.
Then you would understand that it's very easy to give bad answers to bad questions in bad conditions very far from real life.
Just because you studied for X number of years does not mean that you actually know enough. And just because the exam. committees do not accept your answers, does not mean that they are acting as judges to block people - it actually works the other way around. There are a lot of people who pass who are on the borderline.
DeleteAnd saying that the exams are not like real-life is not a good argument for failing - this aspect actually makes them easier to pass. So, in real-life, you always have exactly the correct documents you need to attack all claims, or exactly the right language in an application to defend an amended claim.
As a tutor, I have marked a lot of papers of "EQE-ready" candidates that were pages and pages of complete nonsense. And reviewed papers of people who failed. There are candidates who pass the D paper advising their client that if they have a patent on X + Y in IT, they are free to produce X + Y in IT. As there are no minus points, it is difficult to punish this. Or they write ten pages on different complicated case law without actually giving the simple answer found in the Guidelines (which is the established case law). Or just write out their conclusions, expecting the marker to read their mind.
Yes, there are also some very good candidates who fail (for various reasons). But you fail because you do not meet the standard or do not appear to meet the standard.
In particular, those who provide very complicated answers, with a lot of detailed (possibly accurate) answers think that they should also have passed. But you have also missed the point - at the exam, and also in real-life with a client, start with the simple answer to the question. Once you have that, you can include the more complicated parts (if you have time).
As one of my tutors once said, if you think that you are the smartest person in the room, you will have the "wrong" answer (so not the one they expect).
Also in real life, just because you could win an argument, does not always mean that your client should pay you to do it - they may be happy with a narrower claim or only invalidating claims 1 & 2.
The people taking this exam have already gone through very selective studies.
DeleteMore selective than for becoming a lawyer: the universal representative.
You should wonder how can they fail in a professionnel exam prepared seriously in their everyday speciality.
In every academic law exam, the program is limited into one ore two code books.
In EQE, having no limitation in the code books is an artificial way to complicate it.
The EQE program as an exam and not real practive should only include EPC (law and rules), PCT (law and rules).
The EQE program as an exam and not real practive should exclude : EPO guidelines, EPO official journal, Board of appeal T and J decisions.
Those are not considered as legal basis outside EPO and EQE.
Your judging so negatively bad responses makes people think that you lack the ability to do the job of marker.
You seem to forget that people may just have 10 minutes left to answers exercices where one hour would be necessary.
The time management for papers C and D is totally irrealistic.
You should know that nobody would do the same answer in real life practice as in a EQE exercice just because you take what time is needed in practice.
Maybe you don't know but the D exam only consists for many candidates passing it in copying without thinking pages from a reference book like Wisser, and then praying.
There is no intelligence in there.
Dear Anonymous 30 April 2020 at 18:25
Delete- I agree that there should be a clear syllabus, with clear cut-off points. Particularly for the open-ended parts like case law and OJ EPO. Also, there should be clear distinction between the Pre-Exam and Main Exam materials. But even so, using old exams, you can see 80% of the material that they regularly ask (and you can pass on this). And for the other 20%, you have to deal with it.
- An exam nowadays just based on the EPC/PCT would be useless preparation as a European patent attorney. You need to know the details of the procedure to avoid losing your client's rights - it can be due to something stupid, like not having enough money in a deposit account or paying one too few further processing fees.
But there should be a limited case law and OJ EPO list. In practice, they test more or less what is referenced in the Guidelines.
- as with any exam, you are judged on what you hand-in. The marker often gives the benefit of doubt, but often you can see that the knowledge is not there or they cannot express it.
- The main group who are truly disadvantaged are those not doing the exam in their own language. In real-life they would have more time and the benefit of machine translations. They lose time reading and lose time writing.
- I agree the C paper is pretty full, but that is not true for D. It may be almost impossible to get full marks, but with proper preparation you can pass well (55-65 range)
- The time to spend on each D part is easy to figure out based on minutes per mark. You need to do a good job, but perfectionists will run into a lot of problems in the future. Sometimes you may get more time in real life, but not all clients will pay for it. If you compensate by putting a lot of unpaid hours into everything, you will burn out. I have seen it may times.
- I can assure you no-one passes by just copying pages from Visser.
- It is clear that you have an idea about what the exam is testing, and what you think it should be testing. You may not like the process and not see the value in knowledge of all the subject matter, but if you want to pass, you need to adapt.
Dear Graver Tank, markers do not give any benefit of doubt. Rather, markers and the exam board refuse to recognize any different interpretation. And they have months before and after EQE! For example, in D 0025/17 of 14.2.2018 the DBA found two absolutely obvious mistakes of this sort. Claims 2 and 5 and the general part had to be re-marked, i.e. basically 50% of Paper C. Has anyone ever apologized for giving unclear Paper? Not really. And, even more, the Committee did not want to implement the decision.
DeleteDear Anonymous 1 May 2020 at 10:13
DeleteNo exam is perfect. Yes, the exam is marked according to instructions, and those include whether certain interpretations will be accepted. These are discussed within the committees.
But in a lot of cases, the candidate applying T case law is actually applying it incorrectly - they just take something from a headnote or a reason and apply it broadly. You can try this, but it is not always accepted (also in real-life). The facts of the case need also to be compared. T decisions are not intended to be broadly applicable - G & J decisions are generally broadly accepted, and will eventually end up in the Guidelines.
In the vast majority of cases, such small points of unclarity are not the sole reason why a paper is failed - if a candidate has 42 marks and they are appealing based on an issue where they could get the addition 3 marks, you should also realise that there were another 55 points available which you did not get. If you are borderline, then that is also how your paper is judged overall.
If your goal is to prove that you are smarter than the Boards & Committees, you are going to be frustrated. It is not a healthy approach - your focus should be on passing.
Dear Graver Tank, ok, you may prefer to write about candidates and their alleged faults, care little that no one will qualify this year, and like that no one in the epo/epi will carry any responsibility for obvious failures of the EQE, as Papers C 2007 and 2017.
DeleteHowever, the reality is that this year candidates did their part, but the EQE boards failed in choosing a reliable format and in reacting to events.
As for 55 marks, you never know how much time a candidate lost in trying to choose the "correct" interpretation. Also, there was double penalization in various papers. Then, after the double penalization was prohibited by appeals, the eqe boards actually decided to harm candidates more, and started to nullify already earned marks if they found some unrelated mistake.
There will not be any improvement in the EQE if no one has it as a responsibility. If I fail my employer and clients, they will fire me and leave me. If the organizers fail EQE, there are no consequences, except for candidates (and EPAs, who can get rid of new competitors this way).
Not caring is not true - the ME candidates are in the same position as if they had failed all their papers. That is a huge blow. And there are still uncertainties about next year, so motivation will be very low.
DeleteBut it is unfair to blame the EQE boards - no-one in Europe would ever consider this possible. Their actions up to now have been understandable.
It is also admirable that they took a major decision to help out the Pre-Exam candidates - they did not have to do anything like this. I would have preferred something for re-sitters as well, as that would also be defendable based on fit to practice.
But you cannot expect them to pass first-time ME 2020 sitters or to give them extra marks in advance of ME 2021. No-one in authority would agree, although each has different reasons. Some are looking at the fit to practice criteria, some are considering the long-term effects on the system, and others realise that there will be a recession in the coming months. And some think very short term about not increasing competition for work.
They still have the option of responding to complaints after each paper in 2021, but at least one person would have to complain from each examination centre for each paper that the conditions were not optimal.
I agree on A & B that you can follow a wrong line and end up completely in the wrong place. But for C and D, if you spend too long on one part that is not worth the effort, that is bad exam technique and you should take responsibility. Those papers have separate parts, and parts that are linked often have measures to stop one error affecting the other ones. If you spend 90 minutes on the first DI question, you should be honest with yourself - you chose to do that.
Behind the scenes, they do change a lot based on the Disciplinary Board decisions. For example, after C 2007, they completely changed the organisation and the people in the committees - I would rather they do this, than just issue public apologies.
Dear Graver Tank, EPO/EPI are to blame for the failure of 2020 because they are not observing public interest, which is to qualify asap those who are fit to practice, or at least make efforts in this direction (e.g. to propose the change of rules to AC). How EPO/EPI could select fit-to-practice candidates in 2020 is now a dead issue, because they sent everyone to mEQE in any case. EPAs got rid of 400-800 new competitors for a year, great! Now they "hope" that the EQE will be conducted in 2021. This is quite an effort :)
DeleteAs for C 2007, the reorganization did not help at all, as we can see from C 2017 and other cases.
Concerning isolation between different parts of C and D, this is also a rather wrong theory. The EQE is designed, as they claim, so that a practicing attorney would get about 50 marks. So, if you are at this level, but slowed down and still did not guess what they meant by their unclear formulations, you can be easily at 40.
You have convinced yourself that the problem in not passing is the system, and you have no blame yourself. This is not the first time I have heard it. But it is an unhealthy way to approach any exam - you have to be honest with yourself about why you are failing
DeleteThere are also people who resit every year, hoping that one year the exam committee will accept their style of answer. But you should realise that it is your choice to do this.
After passing, you can volunteer your time to the committees after passing.
Well, dear Graver Tank, you have imagined quite much about me, however, quite wrong. But the really remarkable aspect is your disregard to failures of the EPO/EPI in conducting the EQE, in a fair way, with responsibility for the mistakes.
DeleteI agree!
ReplyDeleteOf course this situation sucks, but in the global context, we are all doing fine. Complaining about lost pay raises seems really tone deaf when people are dying and losing their jobs.
One of the things that other exams (schools/universities) are doing are assessing people on the results they have achieved. It would ease the burden on the organisation if they could promote out a lot of the resitters (candidates who have taken each exam at least once).
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of people who are just a few points short on passing overall. See the discussion here: https://saltedpatent.blogspot.com/2020/04/eqe-2020-officially-cancelled-focus-on.html
True, then one could also argue that preEQe results should also be taken into account for mEQE 2020 candidates and apply some sort of discretion/formula to help.
DeleteIt would make sense to take into account pre-EQE results of 2019 for mEQE 2020 and take into account previous EQE papers for resitters.
ReplyDeleteYes, pre-EQE results and also the fact if the candidate worked this past year
DeleteLeaving the question of fairness aside, is there a possibility that the question papers for EQE 2020 be made publicly available. This could serve as an additional question paper to practice before the main exams. I suppose most of the candidates preparing for the main exams had already practiced most, if not all, exams from the last 5 years. Having the exams from 2020 would really be helpful, especially with the new split in paper D.
ReplyDeleteI have received a letter from epi yesterday referring to the decision of the SB. The letter concludes with the statement "look forward to next EQE, hopefully in 2021". "HOPEFULLY"! Is this a joke??
ReplyDeleteI also received the letter, good words but no compensation for main EQE candidates. The letter does not confort at all. Absolutely incredible.
ReplyDeleteThe letter from the EPI is a good gesture but really there needs to be compensation for mEQE2020 if they say they truly understand the difficulties mEQE2020 candidates faced this year and the upcoming years.
ReplyDeleteI want to take the chance to provide some constructive feedback on what has happened in the past months from the perspective of an EQE 2020 candidate (first time, all four papers):
ReplyDelete1) I think that continuing to tell everyone how to feel about what happened only makes things worse, if thew EPO does not at least also indicate the smallest of gestures of good will to EQE 2020 candidates. I appreciate that Pre-EQE 2020 candidates have not suffered any drawbacks, but unfortunately the same cannot be said for EQE 2020 candidates.
2) In my opinion, the EQE format has been outdated for a very long time. Nothing had been done about it, even though it leads to both the organizing and marking members, but also to the participants, experiencing major drawbacks, such as a huge workload being put on both groups that I do not believe is necessary to achieve the goal of making sure that only highly qualified people are able to achieve the status of a European Patent Attorney. This year, the group of participants will effectively lose all efforts that have been made to take the exam, as well as lose any benefits they could have gained with the qualification within the next year. The way the EQE format is held made it very difficult to find another date for EQE 2020. While I acknowledge that the decision to cancel was probably correct at the time, I think that this entire situation could have been handled differently and much better if the EQE format was not in its old fashioned shape. I appreciate the effort of coming up with an e-EQE, but I think that this has been long overdue.
3) As an example: Children who went to school just 10 years ago are being taught in quite a different way nowadays, even though public criticism regarding lacking improvements/digitalization still exists. I do not even want to start making the same analogy for the EQE format, as the outcome would be rather sad. Most schools and universities that I know do not simply abandon their graduate classes and tell them to wait until the situation is over (or to wait for another year). They simply deal with the situation and find ways to adopt, to take the necessary health and safety precautions and to continue school/lecture/exams, even though they had to change the way those are being held drastically. Unfortunately, the same does not appear to be true with respect to the EQE, even though the achievable qualification for the EQE is likely at least as important as school or university graduation for many of us.
4) Because of the above, I would have appreciated if some acknowledgment had been communicated by the EPO, some form of acknowledgment that our losses are also due to the shortcomings on the EPO’s/organizing members side in the past. This would have actually helped to make it easier to deal with what has happened for me, and potentially also for EQE 2020 candidates in general. As this has not been done, there has been outrage on many digital platforms and the relationship between any EQE 2020 participants and the EPO/epi may have suffered long-term damage. I am not someone who holds a grudge against others, but seeing what has happened and how it had been dealt with, I would not hold anyone to blame if they did.
@ Anonymous25 April 2020 at 09:37
ReplyDeleteI have received that letter too. I think they are telling us that the EQE 2021 may happen or may NOT happen. We should prepare for EQE 2021 and "hope" that it takes place. If not, we can then prepare for EQE 2022!! No biggie!!
Can someone post the text of the letter?
DeleteBased on the remarks above and pursuant to common sense, the candidates have decided to award the Supervisory Board the grade FAIL.
ReplyDeleteBased on the complacence shown in the letter received, and pursuant to social intelligence principles, the candidates have decided to award the EPI the grade FAIL.
Based on the remarks above and pursuant to social intelligence principles, the candidates have decided to award the marker with over 10 years of experience the grade FAIL.
The candidates recommend you devote every minute of your free time to practice more on your skills. Every night, every Saturday, every Sunday, of every week, of every month, of every year. Maybe your respective responses will improve and attain a level of pass next time.
To see that the patent system normally goes on, but you are prevented from becoming part of it (even 2021?) due to the unability of implementing a state of the art examination system which can cope with something like Corona is tough
ReplyDeleteSorry, but the discussion here is absolutely unreal…
ReplyDeleteYou are all assuming that you would have passed the exam… You know as well as me that first-time sitters have only an approx. 35% chance to pass all four papers. So the 65% that would not have passed the exam are not affected by the decision to cancel the eqe2020. Actually, man may even argue that they are better off with this decision. They can sit the eqe2021 without having to pay extra fees, and they will be better prepared and thus will have a better chance to pass all four exams. Do not forget as well an important point of the decision, the candidates' answers will be marked either on the basis of the legal texts and document versions in force on 31 October 2019, or on the basis of those in force on 31 October 2020, depending on which of the two dates would give the candidate the higher mark. So all the time that you have invested in preparing the eqe2020 is not lost at all.
So please stop complaining and accept that life is sometime not fair…
No, life is not fair, coronavirus is not fair. The decision of the Board did not be unfair. They had the power to do some right, and they chose not to.
DeleteThis does not only affect those taking all four exams at the same time. Easy to say stop complaining not going through this.
Who said most candidates sit all 4. Some sit 2 exams per year but they have lost a whole year. Everyone has a lost a whole year and it will take them longer to qualify affecting job progression, wages and family life.
DeleteIf EPO was fair to all candidates and allowed everyone to take their exam then fair. But the EPO shouldn't favour one group over another group in exactly the same situation. That's the point here.
Everybody loses a whole year, this would be the only fair and equal treatment
Deletep-EQE candidates do not lose a year. Rather, the weakest of them win a year or more.
DeleteThe equal and fair treatment for mEQE candidates would be to advance everyone at an average rate.
WTF! I account myself for one of the 35% then.... and even if not: not getting the chance to mess up your exam is also a loss, as it restrains you from getting the experience. The frustration here is about having to start all over again, which is mentally already a total screwed fucked up given, and not even knowing for what if there is no EQE in 2021. Any organisation , eg olymics etc, can make the promise of setting the date and preparing for the future, but just organising an exam in Europe is not possible.... we are 2020!!! not the middle ages....
DeleteActually Rule 6(4) IPREE states that IRRESPECTIVE OF THE MARKS AND GRADE awarded for the pre-examination, a candidate passes the papers once he has sat all of them and satisfies a certain amount of condition.
ReplyDeleteThis means that people who failed pre-EQE2019 may enroll to all 4 papers A-b-c-d and if they pass all of them they do not need to pass the pre-eqe. Also, they may automatically resit them irrespective of the pre-eqe marks in the following year. In my opinion, the same applies also as long as someone not having passed pre-eqe2019 enrolls to also just one paper of the main exam. Moreover, it's in the logic of the "PRE-" prefix put in front of the word pre-exam: you can never do something that you were supposed to do BEFORE the exam AFTER you have done (even just one paper of) the exam...
I have only one question. Is the exam really going to take place in 2021 or will there be another cancellation? These are unprecedented times of course so what's another cancellation? It will be something for the historians to document that the great EQE exam got cancelled twice. It will just be a small mention in the glorious whole chapter dedicated to coronavirus!
ReplyDeleteRule 6 IPREE states that:
ReplyDelete(4) Irrespective of the marks and grade awarded for the pre-examination and subject to Article 14(2) REE, a candidate shall be declared to have passed the examination once he has sat all the examination papers and if he satisfies all of the following conditions:
(a) he has not been awarded a FAIL grade in any of the papers
(b) he has been awarded a PASS grade in at least two papers, and
(c) his total aggregate mark in the four papers is at least 200.
I would like to draw your attention to the "IRRESPECTIVE OF MARKS AND GRADE AWARDED FOR THE PRE-EXAMINATION" sentence. This means that if someone enrolls even only for one examination paper of the main examination and even without having passed pre-eqe2019, for instance, he/she does not have to re-take the pre-examination once access to the main examination is granted!
I firmly believe that the answer is not. Pre-exam is a barrier to accession to main exam, but once you reach main exam, you cannot be asked to go back to obtain the requirement to access main exam... imagine that in 2021 also people who have failed 2019 pre-eqe can join the main exam...
ReplyDeleteGod does not play dice. The EPO does.
ReplyDeleteSo, the situation was like that:
ReplyDelete- pEQE candidates, ok, with reasonable amount of time allocated to studying for the pre-exam, for maximum a year.
- mEQE candidates, having passed the pre-EQE (and all the related stress and anxiety of an exam), being mentally exhausted with the preparation for the main exam, having lost hundreds of hours of personal time with their families, following a long process of at least two years being in exam mode, many of them working in firms or industries that take advantage of their knowledge without any benefits because they are not yet (or at least partly) qualified.
And COVID-19 arrives. We all agree that it is an extraordinary situation and you cannot blade somebody (except for China :P)
Shocking but reasonable decision the first postponment/cancellation in March.
As a mEQE you say how unlucky I am, how i will prepare my self again mentally to have patience and strentgh for some more months.
And after some weeks the SB is coming with the decision to ignore mEQE candidates and promote pEQE !!!!!
And are we still talking if the decision is fair?
Guys, with all the respect, as a mEQE candidate i lost one year, therefore i do not see any unjustice if the pEQE will also lose a year.
With the decision of the SB you are putting people that probably didn't try at all (or some months) at the same level with somebody that wasted his life for YEARS!!!
And, in addition, you give the pEQE guy a huge competitive advantage ! Fresh knowledge, better psychology, better mood to study, in general NO COMPARISON with the situation of a mEQE 2020 candidate who is today completely empty of any hope and strentgh!
Do we have to blame pEQE candidates? Of course not.
I just didn't expect SB to ignore in that way thousands of patent professionals that belong to the mEQE 2020 group.
I wish they will re-consider and modify their decision.
P.G i do not want a single mark as compensation. I want to give my exams in a FAIR WAY!
I have to agree with you. Preparing for EQE exams are exhausting - so much more work than pre-EQE. Now we are being told to do it again but at the same time = at a clear disadvantage to our pre-EQE peers. Its not a level playing field anymore.
DeleteYou could say we should be more prepared but on the other hand we have less time from our workplace, less preparatory materials, lack of motivation, focus and old minds.
I hope the SB would acknowledged the mainEQE candidates just as they acknowledged the preEQE candidates for their loss year.
I'm not blaming the EPO for their original decision which is correct, but they haven't acknowledged mEQE 2020 candidates as they have done so for preEQE candidates.
Deleteif you could sit pre-exam 2020 but you do not planned it and and you satisfied requirements of art 11(2)a ii) REE for main exam in 2021,
ReplyDeletecould you register directly to one or more main exam papers for 2021?
Until about two months ago, EQE had never been cancelled, then something unprecedented happened. For the next few months, EQE will continue to an exam that has never been cancelled twice in a row and then something unprecedented will happen in Feb 2021. Any thoughts?
ReplyDeleteThere is no indication at all right now that the corona situation in Europe will be any different compared to March 2020, so i expect the EPO to inform the candidates very soon which measures are being taken to guarantee that the EQE2021 will take place (especially as "in 2021, the Exams will be organised according to the current format")!
ReplyDeleteAs a mEQE2020 candiadate i don't even want to imagine going through months of preparation and having to forgo social life twice only to face the situation of another EQE cancellation!
If they can't be certain that EQE2021 can go ahead, they need to call it off early enough so candidates don't waste many months of their time preparing for it. I would expect end of August/early September to be notified.
ReplyDeleteOff course, they really need to find an alternative assessment but if this cannot happen and by early September we still don't know if EQE2021 can occur for certain then they need to let candidates know early. DO not leave it 10 days before the exams to tell everybody.
I want it to go ahead in March 2021 but it is very difficult to know or predict what will happen next i.e. second wave. It is very likely that governments across the world will maintain and keep strict social distancing and ban gatherings especially during winter times.
ReplyDeleteJust to remind the EPO that its not just candidates who are situated in Europe, other candidates around the world also come to do the EPO exams.
They must surely tell candidates by September 2020 whether EQE2021 is certain to go ahead. They can't let waste many more months of candidates time if they are unsure it cannot go ahead.
ReplyDelete**unsure it can go ahead
DeleteI see that, for the sake of equity, every candidate shall first pass the pre-examination for sitting the main examination. thus, all pre-examination candidates 2020 should all sit the pre-examination 2021, and only after passing, they can sit the main exam 2022.
ReplyDeleteHey folks, we need to start a petition or all those who should have sat the main exam this year will have to boycott. Everyone had to pass the pre-EQE before sitting the main exam. This decision is so bizzare!
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
DeleteThere is an email address earlier in the threads for appealing against the decision.
DeleteAgreed. Could write to EPI. The decision is so unfair and unbalanced against main EQE candidates.
DeleteYou are threatening to boycott Main Exam 2021? It seems crazy - the only people you will affect are yourselves. I don't understand why this would strengthen your position?
DeleteNeither Article 3(1) REE nor Article 11 REE authorize the Supervisory Board to allow a free pass without a pre-examination. There is not any legal basis which permits such a decision of the Supervisory Board.
ReplyDeleteIn the following Article 11(7) REE is directed to fact that the first pre-examination is held, since in said regulation it is not established that the pre-examination has to held one year before. Said regulation is directed to the fact that a pre-examination is held at all.
Article 11(7) REE
"...Moreover, if such a pre-examination is held, candidates who apply to be enrolled for the examination must have obtained a pass grade in the pre-examination."
The Regulation on the European qualifying examination for professional representatives before the European Patent Office has been established by the Administrative Council , and cannot be overruled by the Supervisory Board.
Quite possible. So what?
Delete"So what"
DeleteEven if someone pass the main-eqe without the pre-examination, this person would not be a legal representative since the conditions set are not met.
Still, most clearly they will be registered, and no action will be taken against this.
DeleteMaineqe2020@gmail.com
ReplyDeletePut your thoughts in this email for appealling
What is this email about?
DeleteFirst thought - stop calling it an appeal.
Delete"First thought - stop calling it an appeal." one of the only usable comments in here...
DeleteIs anyone actively doing anything against it?
ReplyDeleteYou can contact your EPI representative and also the exam sect to voice your concerns.
DeleteWrite to the EPO.
Delete@Anonymous (12 May 2020 at 10:50):
DeleteCould you please provide a contact address of the EPO for such a purpose?
Hi Roel,
ReplyDeleteI did not pass the pre-eqe 2017, 2018, and 2019, I have enrolled for the pre-eqe 2020. May I apply for the main-eqe 2021, now.
Ha ha! Way to make a point!
DeleteI believe so. But you are not forced to - if you prefer, you can enrol for Pre-Exam 2021. Or wait another year for Pre-Exam 2022 ;-)
DeleteThe issue here is that as we see some countries coronavirus cases and deaths fall, other parts of the world are seeing a rise. Its a vicious cycle.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts are that for the health and safety of candidates and the public, it would be hard to see EQE exams take place in March 2021 unless alternative assessments can take place instead.
"In these exceptional circumstances, the EPO and epi have made a thorough search for alternatives to ease this inconvenient situation for candidates of 2020 EQE as far as possible. Ease of access to EQE 2021 will be created for these candidates as follows: all candidates who had enrolled for the 2020 pre-examination paper will be allowed to enrol for the 2021 main examination without having passed a pre-examination. This will also be possible for registered candidates who have completed the required professional activities/training period. Candidates who had enrolled for 2020 main examination papers will be considered to be enrolled for those papers in 2021."... Ease of access for mEQE candidates? I do not see any
ReplyDeleteThis is not good news. Doesn't look like we can lift lockdown measures at all until a vaccine is found. Don't sure if exams can go ahead.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52604676
Unless there is a vaccine available until March 2021, I do not see that the eqe will be held in 2021, as the situation will likely be the same as in 2020 and it would be highly illogical then to go through with the eqe in 2021. The circumstances would then be the same as in 2020. Therefore, I will not study for the eqe 2021 unless there is a vaccine available. No point to study again and then there will be another cancellation.
ReplyDeleteTransportation will also be a big issue for next year. Many rely on public transport to get to these exam venues. Governments are actively discouraging their use so how can candidates/examiners get to exam venues safely?
ReplyDeleteTravelling will be severely restricted and I suspect many countries will be more wary in the winter.
So a person who starts study now spring 2020, for pre-exam 2021, has now passed the pre-exam and can enrol for main-exam. This person can become an EPA at the same time as me started to study at spring 2018. Really fair!
ReplyDeleteSo a person who started, this spring 2020 to study for pre-exam for 2021, has now passed pre-exam and can enrol for main-exam. This person can become an EPA at the same time as me starting to study 2018! Fair EPO, keep up that good job of yours!
ReplyDeleteSo a person who started, this spring 2020 to study for pre-exam for 2021, has now passed pre-exam and can enrol for main-exam. This person can become an EPA at the same time as me starting to study 2018! Fair EPO, keep up that good job of yours!
ReplyDeleteIt is so unfair from the EPO. Everything is given for pre-Eqe 2o2o but nothing for main EQE 2020 candidates. It's horrible.
ReplyDeleteSomething they could do to help out anyone losing work is also to allow post-EQE supervision (proposed on Salted Patent) for attorneys. EPO examiners already get this - they need to be in their job for four) to do the EQE. After passing, they need to complete two years under EPA supervision before they can be put on the list as ea EPA.
ReplyDeleteIt would be fair to offer this as well to patent attorney trainees affected at the moment - so anyone who was enrolled for EQE2020, but has now lost their job (or loses too many hours), could still sit the Main Exam in 2021, and make up any supervisory hours after taking the exam.
Perhaps long-term this could be introduced permanently - it would reduce some of the stress on trainees in general. If you have passed the exam, then full qualification is just a question of time - this makes you very attractive for your new employer.
It is already allowed to have add-up the EPA training period.
This would not affect the quality of attorneys at all, although it might require a change in the REE.
Agreed that this should be a temporary measure but surely we do not want to create further barriers to qualifications in the future. This profession already has far too many unnecessary exams. If you pass the EQE, why would you then need to keep working under supervision.
DeleteWhy not just get rid of some exams if supervision is more crucial to qualification. Why not have coursework/continual assessments.
To me, if you pass EQE then there should be no more barriers to qualification.
If experience and supervision is more valued then get rid of some exams.
Wages, career progression are already severely affected this year because of the dependency on exams. We do not want to have more barriers to qualification and keep people out of the profession.
ReplyDeleteGraver Tank. I agree with you in principle as a temporary measure but will the EPO change in time. I'm sure many are and will be affected by coronavirus in some way. How quickly can they change REE
ReplyDeleteThe whole system is a mess and is really outdated. This notion of having to be under constant supervision does not truly reflect modern day working practices. It needs to keep up with the times. Someone doing part time can still do many valuable hours of attorney work and sometimes more than full time employees.
ReplyDeleteCancelling the eqe is just ridiculous. I can go to work, all other major exams for other professions are held as planned, even contact-sports are allowed again but they can't go ahead with the eqe examination at a later point in time.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, cancelling the eqe in the first place was a mistake but not even postponing it or allowing for an online exam is incomprehensible.
Where do you live and work? I went to go there to! I cannot go to the office, I cannot use public transport, I cannot meet with more than 2 other people, I cannot do sports with my team, my adolescent children cannot go to school, etcetera etcetera. School exams have been cancelled for secondary school, universities of applied sciences (Fachhochschule) and classical universities. Secondary schools, universities of applied sciences (Fachhochschule) and classical universities are all closed until 1 September or even later. Only primary schools have reopened, and even only in part. What you describe is not what I see in my country nor what I see on the TV in other EP countries. Except Sweden maybe.
DeleteThe original cancellation was absolutely necessary and the cancellation of the postponement also! Several 100 of candidates in a single room... 2500 to 3500 candidates travelling for more than 100 km to an EQE location... impossible in March, impossible now, impossible in autumn.
@Anonymous19 May 2020 at 14:04
DeleteAccording to your argumentation, how could the EQE be held in March 2021 then? Assuming that no vaccine is available until March 2021, the corona situation in March 2021 (afther winter) will probably be worse than in autumn 2020 (after summer).
My view is that the EQE needs an alternative assessment very badly. Examination as a professional qualification is a very outdated method. Most other profession uses regular assessments often done online and multiple times throughout the year to accommodate the changes in people's working lives.
ReplyDeleteThe EPO has not moved quickly enough. It remains high risk to do the exams in March 2021.
And its clear that there system is very UNFAIR. Allowing preEQE candidates free passes but nothing for main EQE candidates.
ReplyDeleteI'm worried about the EQE2021 next year as my preparation for EQE 2021 will NOT be easy and is already difficult. I now have more responsibilities than last year as a result of the pandemic where my children can't go to school and I'm left to look after elderly relatives.
ReplyDeletePreparing for the main EQEs during 2019-2020, I at least had a structure in place for revision/work - no life or time for myself really. Now all that has gone out of the window and revising in my own time is even more difficult. Will the EPO take into account, acknowledge or at least understand candidates struggles for preparing the EQE2021.
A Notice from the Examination Board of the European Qualifying Examination
ReplyDelete(EQE) dd 10 June 2020 has been posted on the EQE website Notices and downloads (https://www.epo.org/learning/eqe/notices.html).
The Notice is reproduced below in full (with a direct link below the citation):
"10 June 2020
Notice from the Examination Board of the European Qualifying Examination (EQE)
Article 4 of the decision of the Supervisory Board, dated 20 April 2020, reads as
follows:
For the 2021 main examination only, candidates' answers will be marked either on
the basis of the legal texts and document versions in force on 31 October 2019, or
on the basis of those in force on 31 October 2020, depending on which of the two
dates would give the candidate the higher mark.
In view of this provision and in order to facilitate marking, the Examination Board
advises candidates to indicate at the start of their answers to each of the papers A,
B, C or D, which of the two dates they will be using. In spite of this indication, if
subsequent marking of the answer shows that more marks would have been
obtained using the alternative date, the candidate will be awarded the higher mark.
For the Examination Board
The Chairman
Jakob Kofoed"
(http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/e0254c2d7293d0c6c1258588003bdc37/$FILE/LegalTextsandDocVersionsEQE2021.pdf)