Good luck to all EQE 2022 candidates (main exam and Pre-Exam)!

We wish all candidates that will sit one or more EQE papers in the next two weeks good luck / bonne chance / gute Fahrt!

Our EQE blogs will be open for your comments and opinions w.r.t. the ABand D main exam and the Pre-Exam paper immediately after the exams. We will post our (provisional) answers to the various papers in separate blog posts shortly after we have received copies of the exam papers. To facilitate the discussions, we will also post copies of the papers as soon as possible after we received reasonably clean copies. 

Do not post any comments as to the merits of the answers of a certain exam paper/flow on the blogs while an exam/flow is still ongoing. Also, do not post the invigilator password or anything else that may be considered a breach of the exam regulations, instructions to the candidates, code of conducts, etc (see, e.g.,  Online EQE website, myEQE and the emails from the EQE secretariat).

Before taking the exams, you may also want to check our blog post: 
Note that the Wiseflow Mocks are only available until 6 March 2022 (We assume to prevent any possible confusion between Mocks and real EQE flows)! So if you want to do some further testing in Wiseflow, do not wait until the day before your exam paper!

For Pre-Exam and D candidates:
Be reminded that as of the this EQE, "calendars will no longer be provided to candidates as part of the examination papers for the pre-examination and Paper D. A notice listing the dates on which the EPO filing offices are closed is published each year in the Official Journal. For the purposes of applying Rule 134(1), first sentence, EPC and Rule 80.5 PCT, candidates should refer to the relevant notice on EPO closing days. They will be able to access the EPO website for this during the exam. Candidates are allowed to use their own calendar to identify dates falling on a Saturday or Sunday."
You may want to refer to our dedicated blog post here and to the Notice from the Examination Board dated 19 November 2021.

All candidates, as well as tutors who helped candidates prepare for EQE 2022, are invited to contribute to the discussions on our EQE blogs (General ABand D , Pre-Exam)! You can post your comments in English, French or German. You are invited to post your comments under your real name, but it is also possible to use a nickname if you wish to hide your identity. 

The DeltaPatents team

Comments

  1. Anyone know how to activate a flow in wiseflow? They are all dead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As announced, the Mock flows arr no longer available. They were available only until March 6.

      Delete
    2. You can still have a look at the tools by running a test open. Click on your profile on the wiseflow page, go to "edit settings", and then click on test flowlock. You should be able to see the tools that are available during the exam such as writing tab and viewing tab etc. However, EPO website cannot be openend and of course, no EQE question papers will be available.

      Delete
  2. Is there any information about the password to enter the exam?
    As far as I checked, we received only the password for mock exams

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My mistake, I found the info in the email

      Delete
  3. Sorry, I don't understand why all flow deactive? I want the last days to practise the B and C exams within flow conditions. How can we do this? Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As announced earlier, the Wiseflow Mocks were only available until 6 March 2022.

      Delete
  4. When were paper D and paper A made available in WISEflow? One day before the respective exam or on the same day shortly before the exam?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The EQE FAQ on the EPO website been updated and provides:

      “NEW - 03/2022 - I do not see the flows I am enrolled for. When are they available?

      The flows will be visible in WISEflow in the afternoon/avening before the respective exam paper.”

      Delete
    2. thank you,Roel!

      Delete
  5. Anyone else have the error message window "illegal..." pop up constantly during paper A?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once in D, Alt-Tab By accident twice.
      What was the cause in your A?

      NN

      Delete
    2. Maybe this:

      Instructions to candidates concerning the conduct of the European qualifying examination (OJ 2022, A20):

      III. Technical requirements

      "3. Specifically, candidates are responsible for: [...]

      (e) the computer/laptop they are using (in particular, the computer should not be disrupted by automatic updates or other programs during the examination)"

      or

      "5. Candidates are not allowed to use shortcuts (Alt+Tab, Ctrl+P or the like), key combinations and touchpad gestures in the FLOWlock browser, except the ones mentioned hereafter. Using shortcuts is seen as an unauthorised action and will cause in the FLOWlock browser to stop your examination.

      The following Windows shortcuts are allowed:
      Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V, Ctrl+Shift+V, Ctrl+F (and the corresponding Mac shortcuts)."



      Delete
  6. Apparently many candidates have experienced "blurry assignment window" syndrome. There is a fix on the salted patent blog for those who are interested:
    https://saltedpatent.blogspot.com/2022/03/e-eqe-18-mar-2022-pre-exam-good-luck.html?showComment=1647413077265#c6466770183715466414

    ReplyDelete
  7. When are the papers available on the Compendium?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The main exam papers are now on the EQE webpage. I assume the Pre-Exam will follow shortly.
      The examiner's Reports may be expected at about the same time as the results.

      Delete
    2. No Pre-Exam 2022 yet on the EQE webpages?

      Delete
    3. The Pre-Exam 2022 paper is not yet on the EQE Compendium, but you can find the full text of all 4 parts in our blog posts with our answer to the legal and claims parts.

      http://pre-exam.blogspot.com/

      Delete
  8. When are the results out?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That has not been announced. It used to be July, but in 2021, when D (the first paper of the EQE) was already on 2/3/2021, Ex Rep came already early: 19/6/1 (3m & 17d) and results at about the same date. So with in 2022 D on 18/3/2021, plus 3m & 17 d, expect again early July.

      Delete
    2. And for Pre-Exam: 2021: Pre-Exam 1/3/2021 with results 31/3/2021 and Ex Rep 1/4/20221. So for 2022 with Pre-Exam in 18/3/22, an estimate would be 16/4/22. But it may be that factors like statements/questions which are being challenged, complaints, and practical things like meeting dates of Pre-Exam committee, Quality Committee and Examination Board have an effect.

      Delete
  9. Thank you VERY MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Today the EPO published the following News message on EQE 2022:

    https://www.epo.org/news-events/news/2022/20220323.html

    "European Qualifying Examination 2022
    23 March 2022

    The European qualifying examination (EQE) 2022 concluded last week, after a 11-day examination cycle that ran from Tuesday, 8 March to Friday, 18 March. Successful EQE candidates can request to be entered on the list of professional representatives and can then represent clients before the European Patent Office. The EQE is regarded as a stamp of quality for both the European patent system and the patent attorney profession.

    Organising one of the most demanding and prestigious professional examinations in the world has been possible despite the pandemic thanks to a new, digital EQE. Since 2021, candidates have been able to take the exam from a computer in a location of their choice and using electronic documents.

    In 2022, 2 800 candidates enrolled to one or more of the five EQE exam papers, all of which together took 24 hours. A total of 130 exam pages were made available in the three official languages of the EPO, and there were three layers of invigilation. The 60 invigilation team members, many of whom were epi volunteers, provided technical assistance and advice before, during and after the examination. Candidates who contacted the support team will have their cases followed up.

    Candidates in 2022 benefited from new improvements such as the ability to annotate papers on screen, an integrated chat support function, and extended scheduling of papers (as requested by candidates of the 2021 EQE). The introduction in 2021 and 2022 of mock exams prepared by a team of epi volunteers, individual support and structured guidance has also helped candidates in preparation for taking the exam."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Can anyone point me towards a basis for the durations of the EQE papers this year. For example, Paper C 2022 was six hours in duration. Yet, assuming I am looking at the current IPREE (2019), Rule 25(1) IPREE states "The duration of this paper shall be five hours". So what am I overlooking to allow the setting of the longer paper?

    Additionally, even if there is basis allowing the additional hour, from 5 hours to 6 hours, realistically the duration of the papers, i.e. the amount of time that the candidate is required to spend sat at the desk is increased far above that time. For example, the EQE 'instructions to candidates' document, which is incorporated into the IPREE, states that "[candidates] should log on to WISEflow 60 minutes before the start time of the first flow". OK, 'should' is distinguished from 'must', but it is still presented as an "instruction" to candidates, which if followed extends the duration for which the candidate is instructed to be at the desk. Additionally, the examinations effectively start at the time when the papers are released, inasmuch that candidates need to be at the desk by that time to be competitive, which in the case of paper C was approx. 20 minutes early for each part. Thus, the effective duration of the examinations is significantly increased, which itself puts extra burden on the candidates.

    And from my reading the regulations require a single paper per exam, not the multiple papers in the current E-EQE. How are multiple part-papers presented on the same day distinguished over multiple papers presented months apart? Do the regulations permit this multi-paper approach?

    I'd be interested to hear comments regarding the above.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To add: it is also not clear who issued the “Information on the schedule for the EQE 2022 examination papers” wherein the additional time and the splitting into parts was decided. The document bears no name. Is it EQE Secretariat, Examination Board, or Supervisory Board? And the document also does not indicate under which REE or IPREE provision has been taken to do the split and t be extra time.

      Delete
    2. Good question. It seems to be a decision like the earlier Decision of the Supervisory Board of 17 November 2016 (30 minutes additional time for the main examination), which the Supervisory Board took "Having regard to the Regulation on the European qualifying examination for professional representatives which entered into force on 1 January 2009 (Supplementary publication 2, OJ EPO 2014), and in particular Article 3, paragraph 2, thereof". But indeed this "Information about the schedule" documents do not indicate under which provision and by which body it has been decided to split and extend (the actual "real playing time", as well as the total duration from starts to end).

      That has been explained as "the design length of the paper did not change - it is still as in the REE/IPREE, but candidates get 30 minutes extra to work on it".

      https://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/D463010736208283C125806E004C0ECB/$File/Decision%20SB_%20additional%2030%20minutes.pdf

      Delete
    3. Note that the REE is adapted by the Administrative Council, while the IPREE (which specifies the duration of the exam papers) is decided by the Supervisory Board (Art.3(7) REE).
      The SB can also change the duration/time allowed: see Art.3(2) REE "The Supervisory Board shall, in consultation with the Examination Board, determine the nature, structure and number of the examination papers and the TIME ALLOWED for each."

      Note that the concept that a duration can be an aggregated duration is not strange to the REE - it is e.g. in Art.11(3) REE in respect of the duration of the periods of professional activity.

      Delete
  12. Regarding the 'single paper per exam point above', Rule 25(2) IPREE prescribes that, for Paper C, "The paper shall be presented in the form of a letter from a client...". Yet in 2021 and 2022 Paper C was presented in the form of two different letters from the client.

    Have the regulations been infringed in a way to give rise to a ground of appeal?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is not this argument a bit far-fetched?

      Did you file it as a complaint?

      Delete
    2. The SB can also change the structure of the exam papers: see Art.3(2) REE "The Supervisory Board shall, in consultation with the Examination Board, determine the nature, STRUCTURE and number of the examination papers and the time allowed for each."

      Delete
    3. I'd say it's no more far-fetched than failing a candidate who scores 49 points. C'mon, it's a law exam for lawyers - it's got to comply with the regulations.

      If two different letters from client are allowed under the regulations, are four letters, or ten letters allowed?

      It seems fairly clear to me that the SB in drafting Rule 25(2) IPREE intended "in the form of a letter" to mean a singular letter, inasmuch that the later part of R.25(2) goes on "The annexed prior art shall comprise at least three documents.". So the SB has deliberately used "a" for the first part, and "at least" for the second part - presumably they intend these to mean something different, and for "a" to be interpreted singularly.

      I've not filed a complaint, because as far as I'm aware that can't have any impact on the EB's award. The issue of this is whether it would be a ground of appeal to any later negative decision of the EB under Art. 24 REE "An appeal shall lie .. on the grounds that this Regulation or any provision relating to its application has been infringed.".

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  13. Thanks for reply Roel.

    I was already aware of the additional 30 minutes decision that you cite. But that decision of the SB refers to the 2014 regulations - I can't see that it applies to the 2019 regulations.

    And even if it did apply to the 2019 REE, for Paper C, for example, that still only gets the duration up to 5.5 hours, not the 6 hours that it was in 2021/2022.

    I had overlooked your point regarding Art 3(2) - the SB being responsible for determining duration etc. But as far as I can see the SB did that in the IPREE 2019, and determined that, for C for example, the paper should be 5 hours duration.

    It looks like the 2019 IPREE is the 'determination' of the SB regarding the papers, referred to in Art 3(2) REE.

    Assuming that there hasn't been some unpublished and overlooked private determination of the SB, for which I'm not aware of any precedent, I can't see how the EQE think the papers comply with the IPREE, in particular regarding duration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would the IPREE be the only "determination" by the Supervisory Board? It is quite common that a main set of provisions is supplemented, or overturned, by other individual decisions.

      The "Information on the schedule for the EQE 2022 examination papers" is listed on https://www.epo.org/learning/eqe/notices.html under the heading "Supervisory Board".
      So, even though the document itself does not mention that explicitly, the document is from the Supervisory Board.

      The SB's document presents information as to the adaptations to the papers and timing - it thus seems reasonable that this "Information" was "determined" by "Supervisory Board, in consultation with the Examination Board" (to user the wording of Art.3(2) IPREE).

      So the decision to adapt (compared to IPREE2019) the TIME allowed for each paper, as well as to change the nature and the structure (split into parts for Pre-Exam, C and D, as well as a letter in each of the two parts for C) seems to be taken by the Supervisory Board, in accordance with Art.3(2) REE (even though not explicitly stated therein).

      NB: I agree that it would have been preferred if the IPREE would have been amended and/or if the "Information" document had indicated which body had determined/decided on the information in it and under which legal provision/power. But is is established case law that it is the content and not the form that determine where there is a decision. See e.g. see Case Law Book III.K.3.1: "Determining whether there is a decision depends on the substance of the document content and not its form (J 8/81, OJ 1982, 10; J 26/87, OJ 1989, 329; J 43/92; T 222/85, OJ 1988, 128, T 713/02; J 14/07 and T 165/07). The criterion of substance has to be assessed in its procedural context (see T 713/02, OJ 2006, 267). The decisive question was whether the document at issue, when objectively interpreted in its context, could have been understood by its addressees as a final, i.e. not merely preliminary, and binding determination of substantive or procedural issues by the competent organ of the EPO (T 165/07)."

      Delete
  14. Rule 25(2) IPREE:"presented in the form of a letter" refers to the singular form only. You won't get far with your argument on this one.
    Far more controversial is the use of an editor that is out of focus. Have you checked whether that is within the rules?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The two-part letter STRUCTURE was already addressed above (Roel van Woudenberg 24 March 2022 at 08:39)

      Delete
    2. Thanks for following up on this Roel.

      But I respectfully disagree. I still say there's no convincing evidence that "the SB in consultation with the EB" has make the necessary determination regarding structure and timing etc. All we have to indicate that the SB may have made such a determination is the examination information publication, which happens to be listed under the SB communications section on the website. But even if you assume that it does come from the SB, which isn't certain, there's no indication that the communication results from the SB consulting with the EB, as is required by the regs. Of course, whether we could prove that in appeal proceedings is another thing. I don't doubt that the SB and EB would close ranks and insist that it's all been above board. But I'd say it's suspicious and shoddy at best. What is the purpose of the IPREE if it's all up for change at the whim of the SB whenever they feel like it? It's just a waste of paper. And why did the SB publish the formal amendment to the IPREE in 2014, that you referred to before, if they weren't needed?

      And aside from nuanced arguments of whether the SB has made such a determination, I think its fair to say that the REE and IPREE envisage such determinations of the SB being more formal, permanent, and better-communicated. Note that the 'schedule' was only published in Dec 2021, i.e., three-months' before the exam. What if candidates had been relying on the IPREE for their preparation, and had prepared for a 5-hour single paper exam, and then, at the relatively last minute been surprised by the new schedule? What if the schedule has been published even later - how about the day before the exam? What if the schedule had determined it to be a 50 hour exam? Would this still be OK? If not, where is the distinction between 'far-fetched' complaints about acceptable deviations from the IPREE and subjectively valid grievances.

      Increasing the duration of an exam by 20%, and changing it's structure, at three months' notice, is clearly a significant change.

      Delete
    3. Re the 'out of focus' thing - that's what I don't get. I observed the phenomenon during my exam, and it absolutely wasn't a problem - it was barely perceptible. That non-issue has spawned all sorts of diva-esque hysteria on the blogs, and yet a really significant, late announced, change to the exam format is fine.

      Delete
    4. Hi SL,
      I do not understand what you aim to achieve. Time schedule and structure (split in parts, extra time, 2 letters in C) were the same for e-EQE 2021, so it did not come at a surprise at all this year. Also fully in line with the Mocks. And it is clear that is was additional rules from the SB who are the people to decide. I agree that it would have been preferred if IPREE was amended rather than just publish the Information document, but nothing in the REE or IPREE imposes that as a necessity.
      Did you file a complaint last year? Did you file one now?
      Please keep us posted with the progress of the appeal that you are going to file!
      Gruesse, MK

      Delete
    5. @MK - it's more a devil's advocate thing.

      I just don't get how a lawyer can find the EQE's approach acceptable. Given that the exam involves spending six hours arguing over minutiae that arise only through arbitrary and artificial legal constructs, how on earth can a lawyer be fine with the EQE's approach?

      It's obvious that the exams didn't comply with the IPREE. It doesn't matter what happened in the mocks - they didn't have to comply with the IPREE, and are inconsequential. And whether it is a surprise to you is also irrelevant.

      The question is just did the exams comply with the IPREE, yes or no? As a matter of fact they didn't.

      Non-compliance with the IPREE is expressly a ground for appeal under Art. 24 REE. This non-compliance with the IPREE is itself a reason why the SB would be required to amend the IPREE, as the REE empowers it to, in the event of changes to duration/structure etc, as it did in 2014.

      How is it "clear" that these additional rules are from the SB? And even if that is clear - that's not enough. Such rules must come about from consultation between the SB and EB. Is that clear also? No, it isn't.

      I agree, it's possible that the consultation did happen. But it's not clear it happened. It's possible that it didn't. I'd say, based on the failure to amend the IPREE, as happened previously in 2014, it looks more like it probably didn't.

      And as an aside, I don't agree that the REE empowers the SB to decide on structure and duration in this way. As I've noted below, nothing in the REE requires the SB to notify candidates of it's determinations in this respect. Thus, the logical conclusion of any argument that the SB is permitted to do so could be that, permissibly, candidates turn up to an exam having no idea of format, content, duration or structure. That's clearly not a situation that would ever be accepted. I'd say that's because the REE doesn't intend for the SB to be allowed to make such determinations outside of drawing up the IPREE.

      Delete
    6. I agree that would have been more appropriate if the SB would have amended the IPREE, but they did not but for some reason presented these major changes in the Information document. The way it is presented on the EQE website suggest that the document is from the SB and reflect a decision from them, but I agree with you that candidates should be able to know that beyond doubt from the document itself and not from a reconstruction with uncertainties.

      IPREE was last amended on 3 December 2018, entering into force on 1 January 2019 to apply to European qualifying examinations to be held in 2019 and thereafter. Published in Supplementary publication 2, Official Journal 2019 (no date on that publication). Would you consider such a short notice before the exam appropriate?

      And as an aside, your " logical conclusion of any argument that the SB is permitted to do so could be that, permissibly, candidates turn up to an exam having no idea of format, content, duration or structure" does not hold, as all candidates had full knowledge of format, content, duration and structure from the Information document.

      Delete
    7. @MK referring to your final point - yes on this occasion the candidates did have knowledge of the duration etc, because of the (voluntarily provided) information document. But the fact remains, that nothing in the REE or IPREE requires the SB to provide that information. So the issue does hold, inasmuch that the SB could, apparently permissibly if you believe that the SB is free to alter duration etc at will, change the duration and not inform candidates of that.

      The 'not informing candidates' bit wouldn't infringe the REE or the IPREE. And you appear to be arguing that the 'changing duration' bit wouldn't infringe either. Thus, that leads to the absurd conclusion that it's permissible for the SB to secretly change the duration of the exam whenever it wants without informing candidates.

      Surely that's not an acceptable situation, or one which the REE intended? That must mean that one of the above assumptions is wrong. Either the SB is required to inform candidates of changes to the IPREE, or the SB isn't empowered to make changes outside of the IPREE. As a matter of fact, the SB isn't required to inform candidates. There can be no argument about that. Thus, it must be the case that the REE didn't intend for the SB to allowed to change duration outside of the IPREE.

      And that appears to be supported, as noted below, by the REE expressly requiring that the SB notify candidates of "the date, time and place" of the examination. It's thus clear that the REE intended the SB to be empowered to change those specific matters, but as a result imposed the responsibility to inform candidates of changes.

      And the fact remains that it isn't merely preferable for the SB to alter the IPREE if changes are made. It's compulsory, inasmuch that Art. 24 REE expressly provides that infringement of the IPREE is a ground for appeal. Note, Art. 24 REE isn't qualified by "unless the SB publishes information contrary to the IPREE".

      Thus, if the 'information' sheet published by the SB doesn't alter the IPREE, all candidates have a ground for appeal. And that's just a fact. The only point of argument is whether the information sheet altered the IPREE.

      Did the information sheet alter the IPREE? I can't see any argument that it did! The information sheet doesn't even refer to the IPREE, neither was it published in the OJ. This is different to the situation in 2014 where the amendment did reference the then IPREE and was published in the OJ.

      Delete
    8. So basically, to me there seem to be at least two possible issues on which an appeal would be based:

      (1) - duration - did the SB in consultation with the EB determine that the duration should be changed? This would be a tricky ground for appeal, inasmuch that I don't doubt that the SB and EB would close ranks and insist they they did.

      (2) - infringement of the IPREE - did any such determination of the SB & EB alter the IPREE? This issue is less open to obfuscation by the EQE, it's down to just an objective assessment in view of principles and precedent of the EPO. I say that the IPREE was not altered. And MK above conclusively agrees with this "... it would have been more appropriate if the SB would have amended the IPREE, but they did not ...".

      So that's two people, both familiar with the principles and precedent of the EPO who think that the IPREE was infringed.

      And as noted, infringement of the IPREE is a ground for appeal, full stop.

      Delete
    9. Changing duration and structure does not require a specific form, and only requires the SB to consult the Examination Board:

      See Art.2(2) REE: The Supervisory Board shall, in consultation with the Examination Board, determine the nature, structure and number of the examination papers and the time allowed for each.

      However, amending the IPREE requires more bodies and, presumably, more time:

      See Art. 2(7) REE The Supervisory Board shall be authorised to draw up and amend the IPREE in accordance with this Regulation after consulting the Examination Board, the Examination Committees and the Examination Secretariat. Prior to their adoption, the President of the EPO may refuse any provision resulting in an increased financial liability for the EPO.

      It may be doubted whether secondary legislation under Art. 2(2) can effectively amend the primary legislation, which is the REE and IPREE under Art. 2(7).

      On the other hand, Art. 24(1) REE define that the framework is defined by the REE and ANY provision relating to its application. The latter may refer to provisions under Art. 2(2) REE, and include the Information document.

      See Art. 24(1) REEE: 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.

      Art. 9(2)(d) provides that (2) The Secretariat shall publish the Compendium and any other information relating to the examination or its conduct.

      This was done by the publication of the Information document on the EQE website.

      My "more appropriate" indicated a preference, not a legal requirement. It cannot be a basis for appeal.

      So, all-in-all, I doubt whether your appeal will succeed.

      Delete
    10. Hi SL and MK,

      I agree that it would have been preferred if the IPREE would have been amended to incorporate the text of the "Information" document (or at least a general description of it, such as splitting into parts, extra time for making the paper, possibility of breaks). Alternatively, the "Information" document could have indicated which body had determined/decided on the information in it, when, and under which legal provision/power. In Dutch we would say: “Het verdient niet de schoonheidsprijs”.
      But for now, we need to take the situation as it is, and hope/suggest improvements for the future.

      I doubt whether any REE/IPREE provisions were violated. I tend to agree with the arguments from MK in the comment above: Art. 3(2) REE (not Art.2(2)) is a provision with quite a wide scope.

      To prevent any doubt as to the validity and the authority, I hope that the IPREE will be amended for next EQE, or that the Information document indicates which body decided on it and under which provision. The document could e.g. indicate (as the decision to award 30 minutes extra did):
      " The Supervisory Board,
      Having regard to the Regulation on the European qualifying examination for professional representatives which entered into force on 1 January 2009 (Supplementary publication 2, OJ EPO 2019), and in particular Article 3, paragraph 2, thereof,
      has decided as follows:
      [..]
      Done at Munich, DD MM 2022
      For the Supervisory Board
      The Chairman
      NAME"
      (https://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/D463010736208283C125806E004C0ECB/$File/Decision%20SB_%20additional%2030%20minutes.pdf)

      Delete
    11. The phrase "only on the grounds that this Regulation or any provision relating to its application has been infringed" in Art.24(1) REE seems to relate to the REE (="this Regulation"), the IPREE (dtawn up under Art.3(7) REE), as well as the "Information" document (assuming that is determined under Art.3(2) and any other provisions (such as Code of conduct, the Instructions, the decision to communicate only via MyEQE)...

      Delete
    12. Thanks both to Roel and MK for your input. I do appreciate your points. Personally I still think that the duration change in particular is suspicious at best. I wonder if the SB will expressly alter the IPREE for 2023, and if they do, whether any inference can be drawn from that (the main reason for my posting here was on the assumption that the EQE probably read these blogs).

      Delete
  15. It's also noteworthy that Art. 19(3) REE requires that the SB notify candidates of "the date, time and place" of the examination.

    Notably though, Art. 19(3) doesn't require the SB to notify candidates of the duration or structure of the examination. Thus, if you take the position that the SB is free to deviate from the IPREE, candidates could turn up to an exam blind as to the duration and structure, which the SB could have made up itself the day before. And that would all be in accordance with the regulations and any complaint would be far-fetched.

    I'd say that the reason for Art. 19(3) requiring communication of those particular points is that the REE envisages that those are the only anticipated/acceptable heads of deviation from the IPREE, and that it anticipates that the other points that are left to the SB to determine will be recorded in the IRPEE.

    Or alternatively, do you think that Art. 19(3) doesn't require the SB to communicate the duration and structure because it intends that candidates don't need to know those issues?

    ReplyDelete
  16. B was better than last year, but it is so clumsy from the screen with so little parts printable in advance. Wiseflow is too poor in windows management for me. Not at all real life, where I can have multiple windows open side-by-side to view multiple pdfs, and where I split my editor window in Word to see one part of my response while typing another section. I hope I passed, but if not I hope that Wiseflow will be abandoned for something better or otherwise significantly improved.
    NB: I did not encounter your out-of-focus issue, but I can imagine it to be annoying.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Can someone pleas tell me: if my editor was out of focus throughout the whole exam, is that grounds for a complaint? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can complain about anything you like. But I can't imagine that the EQE do much in response to complaints 'cept file the away in the bin.

      It's not expressly a ground for appeal, inasmuch that I can't think of any express requirement in the REE or the IPREE, or any other provision, for the editor to be in focus.

      And in any event, if you agree with the posters' arguments above, the SB are free to alter the structure of the exam at will. Thus, they are free to include a blurred editor in the exam structure.

      So in summary, no, in view of the current REE, I don't see that it is a ground for appeal. That sounds like a reasonable way of conducting professional examinations with significant market implications, doesn't it?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. It could be a ground of appeal for infringement to the principle of equal treatment, but only if you duly reported it the day of the exam, and if the DBoA has reasons to believe that the inconvenience was not properly compensated by the EB.

      Delete
    4. Art. 24 REE appears to prescribe that infringement of the principle of equal treatment isn't a ground for appeal. And everyone who I have asked experienced the issue. So it looks like everyone was equally affected anyway.

      Where are you getting the two requirements 'reporting on day of exam' and 'not properly compensated from'? Are they just what you think the rules could possibly say without having read them? I can't identify any basis for those requirements.

      Delete
    5. Several recent successful EQE appeals were on infringement of the principle of equal treatment. You can check the D decisions from the last few years.
      For example, D 0029/21 () of 28.2.2022:
      "17. The Board is aware that it is practically not possible to provide perfectly equal conditions for all candidates under any circumstances. Some differences always remain and have to be accepted (see e.g. D 0011/19, point 8.3.3(c) of the Reasons, referring to different examination venues and the inevitable differences resulting therefrom). The Board considers that in view of the fact that the editing functions played a key role in answering the paper, the differences of the editing functions under the two operating systems, as explained by appellant, represent a difference that is not objectively justified. On this basis, the Board holds that the appellant was disadvantaged through the use of the MAC OS without good reason, and this disadvantage must be compensated.
      18. Similarly to the compensation of the unequal treatment caused by the erroneous examination paper, the appropriate compensation must be determined by the Examination Board. As suggested by the appellant, an estimate of the effective time loss may be considered as an objective measure of the disadvantage (see also D 0011/19, point 8.3.5 (c) of the Reasons, discussing estimated time loss as a possible measure of a disadvantage, even if inevitably imprecise). However, the Examination Board may consider other factors to be a more suitable measure for the disadvantage."
      (see recent comments to our B 2021 blog - http://eqe-b-em.blogspot.com/2021/03/paper-b-e-eqe-2021-jury-is-still-out.html as well as our Pre-Exam blogs with a post on Pre-Exam appeals - http://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2022/02/on-interpretation-of-pre-exam-questions.html)

      Complaints on the day originated from Rule 19(3) IPREE, which has for the online EQE been somewhat relaxed to the end of the day by OJ 2022, A20 "Instructions to candidates concerning the conduct of the EQE” (which is also on the Online EQE webpage https://www.epo.org/learning/eqe/e-eqe.html), of which paragraph I.8 says:
      “Candidates wishing to lodge a complaint concerning the conduct of the pre-examination or the main examination can do so at the latest by the end of the day on which the examination takes place by sending an email with a written statement of the facts to the Examination Secretariat (helpdesk@eqe.org) and stating their full name and EQEReg number.”

      Delete
    6. By the way, I doubt whether an appeal based on out-of-focus can be successful: it has been reported that that also occurred during the Mocks, and that a solution was also available, so that it may be difficult to argue that it came unexpectedly while also arguing that you came well-prepared to the exam - with preparation including familiarizing yourself with Wiseflow and the editor, as emphasized multiple times by the EQE organization, and following the Wiseflow recommendations (including a screen size recommendation).

      Delete
    7. https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/d210048du1.html Equal treatment in reason 9 as general principle

      Delete
    8. Thx, I added it to the comments to our B 2021 blog
      http://eqe-b-em.blogspot.com/2021/03/paper-b-e-eqe-2021-jury-is-still-out.html
      (you may need to click "Load More" at the bottom of that page to see all comments)

      Delete
    9. I haven't read the appeal above re the Mac OS but considering there were Mocks etc., surely the OS would have been tested etc., and if it wasn't working then surely they should have chosen another OS. I will have to read the Appeal but just something I thought about when reading the above.

      Delete
  18. I really don't understand the point with citing the IPREE or REE. If I can't read what I am writing, that is pretty stupid for me and for the EQE. That is certainly not acting in good faith on the part of the examining comittee.

    ReplyDelete
  19. when should we expect trhe results? Someone said laste year they were available by end of march?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Candidates have reported that the Pre-Exam Result letters are now available in MyEQE!

      Delete
  20. When are the mains results expected?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The EQE helpdesk advised me that the results will be issued at the end of June.

      Delete
    2. Last year (EQE 2021) the result letters were send to the main exam candidates on/around 21 June (and examiner's report at about the same time), so maybe 1 or 2 weeks before or after that.
      NB: Statistics came a few weeks later, 6 July

      For EQE 2021, see http://eqe-deltapatents.blogspot.com/2021/06/e-eqe-2022-examiners-reports-available.html and http://eqe-deltapatents.blogspot.com/2021/07/eqe-2021-statistics-are-out.html

      Delete
  21. Logically, as there are less candidates than last year, and participation confirmation came 1 month earlier than last year (end of april), results had to be expected earlier than last year, e.g. end of May, but as the Examination board has to decide on so many appeals for last year's B, results are to be expected till end of this month (hopefully)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are the same people who handle appeals the same people who mark the exams? Otherwise i can't find the rationale of them postponing the parking based on bulky appeal procedure.

      Delete
    2. I suppose a rationale behind it may be that the Examiner's don't want to finalise the mark scheme before understanding the outcome of the appeals to avoid future appeals on similar grounds.

      Delete
    3. There are several Examination Committees, and only one Examination Board.
      Examination Committees mark the answer papers and make a proposal for the grades to be awarded for each paper.
      The Examination Board shall scrutinise the marks for each paper proposed by the Examination Committees and decide whether a candidate should pass or fail the examination. The Examination Board may revise candidates' marks or instruct the Examination Committees to re-mark their papers according to a revised marking sheet.
      The Disciplinary Board of Appeal deals appeals, and remit the cases to the Examination Board for a new decision to be taken.
      Hence, many rivers flow into one mill, which must give the final product

      Delete
    4. @ Anonymous 9 June 2022 at 15:08 (please use your name
      Why do you think they are "postponing the marking"? The marking is not later than other years.

      The marking goes in 4 steps (leaving out any detail):
      1) a significant part of the papers are pre-marked using a pre-marking scheme;
      2) the committees (50% EPO, 50% epi) discuss the pre-marking results and adjust the marking table;
      3) all papers are marked by 2 examiners from the committee;
      4) the marks are given to the Examination Board who decide on pass/fail

      Imagine you are in the committee, and you need to mark 40-50 papers, each taking 1 hour, and you need to do that in your spare time... not surprising that step 3 takes several weeks.

      If someone appeals, the appeal first goes to the division that took the decision, i.e., the Examination Board, to check for interlocutory revision - that is the same as with normal appeals in examination proceedings, compare Art. 24(3) REE with Art.109 EPC, only the time limits are different . If the Examination Board does not grant interlocutory revision, it goes to the (Disciplinary) Board of Appeal.

      Delete
    5. Roel, I think we shall compare the timeline exams-results only for e-EQE, i.e. this year with last year. I think it's more quickly to extract the papers from Wiseflow in pdf than to collect from exam centers, scan and distribute; and it's more quickly to read/correct electronically than with hand-written papers, so earlier years' results timing is irrelevant.
      I understand annonumous comments' wondering
      As I already commented, it was logical, as there are less candidates than last year, and participation confirmation came a month earlier than last year that results had to be expected earlier than last year.
      But nevermind, we have no choice than to just wait and see

      Delete
    6. I agree with you Mariya, and as you say, we can just wait and see. I guess the results arrive earliest next week since its holidays in DE Thu, Fri this week.

      Delete
  22. I have been informed by the EQE secretariat that the result will be available end of June.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Big if true

      Delete
    2. What do you mean "big". That's the latest that they can possibly take, given the timing of last years' results and all those factors regarding time savings due to online answer sheets as mentioned in the comments by a user above.

      Delete
    3. The subject may hypotethically possess a large mass and volume given that there is corporeal evidence to support its authenticity.

      Delete
    4. It's fairly poor that even in mid-June the best estimate the EQE could give for results release was 'end' June. Presumably by that time they know full well the exact date, but are deliberately withholding the info. It puts a fair bit more stress on candidates having to keep an eye on emails etc to find out when the results are released.

      And the point about delays from dealing with appeals doesn't seem valid to me either. It's ridiculous and clearly unacceptable that appeals processing takes so long. It's fairly well accepted, and prescribed by the European Convention on Human Rights (Art. 6) that judicial processes should be timely. The slow-processing basically means that there is no effective appeals process, inasmuch that in the absence of a timely decision appellant candidates are still practically required to prepare, pay for, and attend the subsequent year's exam.

      Delete
    5. I fully agree. This is such an annoying way of declaring results. Like the rest of the world, they should declare in advance a date on which the results shall be declared and then just do that! All universities do that! Why can't the EQE secretariat?

      Delete
    6. Guys, you need to relax a bit. I think everyone understands the frustration involved here. The autonomy that the EQE committee enjoy is a matter of worry, but at the same time they may not be at liberty to disclose some details. Understood that this lack of transparency causes stress in candidates. But the last thing we all want is to have goof ups like the last year where the published results were wrong and they had to correct it. It is better to wait and get an accurate result than to have wrong marks uploaded in the EQEasy portal.

      Delete
    7. @Candidate - fully agree. The previous posters come across as beside themselves with hysteria. And over such a trivial thing as the ability to work as an EPA. Shame on them. No?

      Delete
  23. Is today going to be the day? Fingers crossed!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no guarantee that today is the day. If you look back over the past few years, results have been variously released on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. So it really could be any day this week. And for some reason the trend over the past few years has been for results not to be released until late-afternoon; after 3pm.

      So it's just a complete guessing game. And it's not even like if results aren't released by 9am you can relax and assume no results today. When they are released it'll probably be late-afternoon.

      Delete
  24. I've just read on Zsofia Pintz' Linkedin post that the EQE examination board finalised all decisions on marks last week (with one D1 question being neutralised as predicted).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The examination board called me also over the weekend to keep me updated. I missed the call though. They left a voicemail in which they stated the purpose of the call but said they couldn't give further details in the voicemail due to confidentiality reasons. I was about to call them today but now that there's a LinkedIn post about it I think I don't need to!! Thanks for saving me the time and effort.

      Delete
    2. If the examination board would have called me, I would surely call them back!

      Delete
    3. Question 5 (5 marks) in Paper D is neutralized. Reason: Due to different publication dates for the article given in the English, German and French versions of the paper, the Examination Board decided to award full marks to all candidates for question 5.

      Delete
    4. "You also received the information"?

      Delete
    5. Some candidates already have access to the examiner reports for Paper A, B and D. Thanks to the EPO's document library. The reports are no longer available there.

      Delete
    6. It's such a shambles this releasing the results without any warning.

      Presumably the idea of releasing the results all in one go is for fairness so that everyone gets their results at the same time. But without warning everyone finds out at different times, typically from whispers on the grapevine.

      Delete
  25. It is starting to feel that today is not the day! :(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree... I am so sick of refreshing the page really..

      Delete
    2. Well, last year I didn't get my results until around 14:30 GMT, so there's still time!

      If not today, at least we know it will be this week.

      Delete
  26. "Tout vient à point à qui sait attendre"

    ReplyDelete
  27. and also today the results come out tomorrow

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is that for certain?

      Delete
    2. no, I have been repeating this for a fortnight

      Delete
  28. My results letter actually very briefly appeared on the documents section of myeqe at just the time I was refreshing the page. It was there just long enough for me to grab it (passed!), but it's now gone again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is the letter dated for today?

      Delete
    2. no way! I must have missed that! When's it dated for?

      Delete
    3. I don't think i believe you! haha

      Delete
    4. What is the point of that kind of comment exactly? You could have just said it briefly appeared then was removed... Here you're just teasing stressed people... Anyhow, congrats on passing I guess.

      Delete
    5. Yes, do let us know the date on the letter! Congratulations on passing!

      Delete
    6. Don't feed the trolls

      Delete
    7. Impossible for this to occur.

      Delete
    8. Yes it occurs for me too ! The letter also indicates how to resolve global warming and where to find unicorne.

      Delete
    9. Finding a Unicorne is only a zillion times harder than finding a Unicorn but doable.

      Delete
  29. Wouldn't it be nice if the EPO's IT team worked overnight like elves and uploaded all the results so that when we woke up tomorrow, we would all have it in our E-Queasy accounts! I am happy to sacrifice my Christmas in exchange!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll not sacrifice Christmas. But I would pay 600 euro for them to do that. Wait, I already did.

      Delete
  30. Starting to wonder whether I really did sit those exams in June... Was it all a bad dream?

    Honestly though, as much as I appreciate that the EQE results tend to be relatively quick (compared to the PEB in the UK, anyway), I wish they had either given us a set date or said nothing at all. Or even just a set day of the week/set time of the day!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you, I called yesterday and asked and they were not able to tell me if it was going to be this week or even next week. The only “certainty” they gave me was “For sure it is not going to be August..”

      Delete
    2. And in this way, they make couple thousand people each year anxious for weeks and not being able to plan any holidays for end of June/first weeks of July, in case points are missing and appeal is advisable. Last year we had results on 21st. It was first year, more candidates due to cancelled PREexam. Now - they can't even tell - "set date - 5th of July, result will be published". This is just cruel for candidates.

      Delete
    3. totally agree with all of these points. I would rather they took longer to mark the exams, but give us a definite date to be released. I really haven't been able to concentrate well this week and last, and I am sure I am not the only one.

      Delete
    4. "For sure it is not going to be August"

      Wow... That's a bit of a change from "expected end of June".

      Thanks for passing that on though MN - it's good to know.

      Delete
    5. In response to: Anonymous28 June 2022 at 11:45. You are not the only one. I am finding it very distracting and hard to focus properly.

      Delete
    6. Same here. At this point it feels as though they’re toying with us.

      Delete
    7. In response to: Anonymous28 June 2022 at 11:45. Same for me too... You are not alone!

      Delete
    8. We all are in the same boat. my productivity is zero between 2 to 4 pm from last few days. Can't focus.

      Delete
  31. Same. Very distracted this week. How on earth do they justify not announcing a date for release. Even if they announced the date at the start of June that would take away a lot of the guessing and constant page-refreshing.

    It seems particularly ridiculous that apparently the EQE are leaking out bits and pieces of information. They are apparently calling some people with info, there's Linkedin posts apparently based on authoritative sources, examiner's reports and results apparently being momentarily released.

    ReplyDelete
  32. It won't be August?? Anybody else also got the same response from the help desk?

    ReplyDelete
  33. I e-mailed the helpdesk last week and last Monday Vera at EPO said the results are expected "for end of June". Also a blogger wrote that a highly reliable source told her the examination committee took all decisions last week and that the results will be available "beginning of this week".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now, can we expect some Vera-city ?!

      Delete
    2. It is really a shame to say "end of June" when we are actually at the end of June..

      Delete
    3. The same Vera that uploaded a "Results" file onto Babylon which read "The results are not yet available". The EPO is toying with us.

      Delete
    4. Not that high reliable source, given the email from the Helpdesk of today...

      Delete
  34. Has anybody called the helpdesk today? If yes, please can you share what you were told?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, i called them. Results will be out begin july, before 15th. They will send an email out soon.

      Delete
    2. Omg how hard can it be to prep 1000 PDFs and put them on the server… unbelievable

      Delete
    3. If that's true, surely they're not going to carry on with this nonsense of not giving a date?

      Delete
    4. did they provide a reason as to why they've been delayed? it's completely unacceptable because other "sources" have been saying definitely this week.

      Delete
    5. No, they didn't give a reason. I asked if there were technical issues but she just said there was "something they can't manage". I pushed for an exact date but she just said "beginning of july, before the 15th of july."

      Delete
    6. Dear Fred, I don’t think that the anonymous comment on the blog is a reliable „source”. Be patient.

      Delete
    7. @ anon 14:25 - at least one 'source' previously saying this week was the EQE, who had indicated the results would be out in June.

      Delete
    8. Same info here from Helpdesk : an email will be sent this afternoon, results available July the 15th at the latest. New R126(2): the 15 day rule!

      Delete
    9. And June is until Thursday, 23:59. Plus the participation confirmation explicitly states that the results are expected to be in June.

      Delete
    10. @SL maybe that's the point - even the EQE don't seem to be a reliable source at this point! :P

      Anyway, I guess we will know by this afternoon, if the fabled email arrives. It'll be fairly disappointing if the results are delayed, seeing as they said way back in April that the results were expected in June and have had the intervening time (including almost all of June!) to correct that information. I can only assume that they are somehow completely oblivious to how distressing all this is for candidates.

      Delete
    11. I just called the helpdesk and I was given the same information. The results shall be out before July 15, they are preparing an email to be sent to the candidates.

      Delete
    12. @JN they are definitely oblivious. "But why do you need a reason, it's not going to change the results?"

      Delete
  35. After announcing results would in June, informing candidates on June 28 or 29 that results now will be announced before July 15 is not helping at all. Much time is already wasted in anxiety and anticipation. The examiner reports that were available for a short while have already worsened the matter. This is not professional at all and it's quite frustrating. I don't know many exams where you pay 1000 euros as fees and are made to wait more than 3 months for the results (with no specific date).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just received the email. I need to say I did not expect anything until then, but I'm still disappointed

      Delete
  36. I’m sure last year they also said the results would be delayed until the middle of July because of technical issues, and then the results were actually uploaded shortly after. I think the takeaway is that the EPO can’t be relied upon to provide accurate information in regards to the results

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did they? I don't remember that.

      Until that fabled email arrives saying that results are delayed, we haven't yet had any provably inaccurate information from the EPO/EQE. There's still some of June left!

      (Don't get me wrong, I don't have much faith in the results coming out this month, but thought it was worth remembering that the only reliable information we have are the participation communications and any communication you personally might have had with the helpdesk/EQE)

      Delete
    2. Side note: Not sure if this is what you mean @anon 28 June 2022, but I just checked my participation confirmation for last year, and it said results were expected in July. They arrived on 21 June.

      Delete
    3. I got this information from the first comment on Deltapatents' blog post dated Saturday 19 June 2021. I mistakenly thought it was a letter sent to candidates, but appears to have just been a comment from the helpdesk on a phone call :)

      Delete
  37. Jesus, Mary and Joseph and the wee donkey, can we just move this thing along before it drives us all round the bloody bend?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. Not until 23:59 on Thursday June 30th. :P

      Delete
  38. Dear candidate,

    Please be informed that the results of the EQE 2022 main examination will be available soon. We expect to provide them by 15 July 2022.

    All candidates will be informed by email once the results are available on myEQE.

    Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Sincères salutations

    European Qualifying Examination EQE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This isn't true. Sorry troll

      Delete
    2. why I have NOT received it???

      Delete
    3. It is - I've just had the email too!

      Delete
    4. The email was in my junk mail folder. Appropriate given that its content was absolute rubbish!

      Delete
  39. I wonder if hundreds of people refreshing the MyEQE system is making it difficult to upload the letters...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Possibly the case, but if so then it would make so much sense for them to simply say this and ask people to stop refreshing. Then again this would involve an attempt at communication, so perhaps I'm being a little too idealistic...

      Delete
  40. I can't believe they still aren't providing a date - it's a bad joke.

    ReplyDelete
  41. the examinatio committee of eqe even does NOT need or want to say sorry.... or even an excuse for whatever it has done or is doing...

    ReplyDelete

  42. Well, we just got the fabled email. EPO sucks. Exam comitee sucks. Whoever is the one reason for all this - sucks the most. They have power over our results, our feelings, and current mind-state. They use it poorly. And after all - they will announce "This years exam, was as always - a great success". When I began this whole process of becoming EPA - EPO had a great reputation. Seems it was just a fairy tale. They are a gruop of people that just doesn't care. We have limits in our work that we have to obey - time limit to file response, to pay etc. Here - they have power, they have no-one in control over them. So they will not stay all night trying to be on time. They just don't care. Shame

    ReplyDelete
  43. What a shame seriously! Even the title of the mail is bad: "EQE 2022 - Results main examination". This mail to state that they are not on time and we have to wait and stress two weeks more! At least, they could annouce a precise date!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Maybe we should give them a 1star review on google maps...they have 59 opinions, so if couple hundred dissatisfied people shares their anger there, maybe someone will notice

    ReplyDelete
  45. Imagine my situation, did the exam when I discovered to be pregnant and now 5 months after the stress of waiting for the results coupled with this heat wave...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hope everything remains smooth with your pregnancy and you're managing to take care of yourself :)

      Delete
  46. Alright, back to work then. We can't just spend the next two weeks refreshing myEQE and DeltaPatents for updates! :P

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You underestimate my F5 key

      Delete
  47. This is unacceptable, they must pay us a further processing fee. 50% of the examination fee.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Soon" is a relative term and therefore not acceptable under art.84 EPC. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  50. The decision to postpone the results also violates Art. 113 EPC, since the candidates did not have an opportunity to present their comments about the reason for postponement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Art. 10(1) of the REE says that the EB are only bound by the REE and the IPREE. Not the EPC.

      Delete
  51. Results should not be taken into account due to late filing.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I would rather wait a bit longer for them to properly consider the EQE exams this year. My view is that the papers, especially paper C again, was not well adapted and there were clear mistakes, translation issues in papers. So maybe they need to account for this. Be patient and wait. I'm glad they told us a date now at least.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Its a bit annoying but at least we have a date now. Just have to wait a little longer. Lets enjoy the next 2 weeks before the dreaded day. I would rather they release it on the Friday than Monday.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @ anon 15:32 - how is delaying results necessary to allow the EQE to consider mistakes they made in the paper? And again, they haven't told us a date.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that there were mistakes and I don't like the fact that they had to delay it but that is the situation we are in. Everyone and from various blogs know that the papers this year were insufficient in some way or another.

      Paper D is the obvious mistake of translation. Translation mistakes (look at Blog A on DP) in paper A and in paper C, there appears to be 3/4 possible attacks on just 1 claim, which is impossible and not within the achievable time period so clearly, the paper has not been appropriately written. Claim 1 had 2 possible attacks which is very confusing and shouldn't be the case so I suspect for paper C, they will have to take alot into account.

      Delete
    2. What “translation mistakes” in Paper A? It’s yet another time I’ve seen somebody claiming that there were errors in the paper but I can’t find anything to support this.

      Delete
    3. Error between DE and EN/FR version. Its in the Delta patent blog paper A.

      Delete
    4. Paper C was also very different too. Didn't feel correct at times and the paper was too open with too many possible attacks etc... It caused alot of confusion for many candidates.

      Delete
  55. 15th July - fine. Now we know. I'm going to enjoy the next 2 weeks as much as possible and block out exams result stress

    ReplyDelete
  56. take however long they want to take, just give me a positive result. Don't want to go through this next year again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, I really can't bear the thought of doing it again. The incompetent wiseflow browser has cost me so much already. Its not fit for purpose especially for B and C papers.

      Delete
  57. It is highly annoying and I do want to know why there is a delay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I got the fabled email and directed the resulting breakdown at the Secretariat over the phone... they were frustratingly vague about the reasons for the delay, saying at one point that they weren't withholding results and at the next that they had "in their hands" our results, knowing who had passed, but couldn't send them out due to "technical reasons". When challenged (have they not decided on a font size or something?), I was told this was a "good excuse" (sounding like it came from above), that they weren't allowed to say anything about these reasons but that it would all be made clear in our results letters.

      They claim to understand what we're going through, and genuinely seem to think that today's email contributed to them being "transparent". I can't possibly imagine what these reasons could be, but stressed the point that they are the only examining body I know of that can't give a day or even a week for results and that we need far more communication from them about results that can be pretty life-changing for us. Hopefully they will learn from this that their "hopes" for getting results out don't mean a thing, and that we just need to know how long we can park our stressing for.

      Delete
    2. We're getting closer then. Invention of technical problem -> inventive

      Delete
    3. if they are delaying results for some stat modelling then I urge them to release the results to candidates and do the stat modelling later for the rest of the profession. Candidates don't care and just want to know where they stand. If it is really because they have not marked all scripts or accounted for all errors/IT issues/wiseflow problems then I can understand the delay.

      Delete
    4. The organization that handles inventions relating to cutting edge technologies is facing technical issues in uploading results of approx. 2000 candidates and needs two weeks to fix the issue. I have no words.

      Delete
    5. me too. I would be extremely disappointed if its a technical issue. They have several months to deal with this.

      If my results are good/positive then I wouldn't care one bit about the delay but if it is bad then it will be hard.

      Delete
  58. Yes its frustrating but like the guys above have said, lets now enjoy the next 2 weeks ;-)
    No point worrying about this now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ditto - really hoping for a positive result. I can't bear the thought of letting down a 4 year old.

      Delete
  59. what is the delay about? is it technical issues - if so, I won't be pleased as they had the whole of spring to consider uploading results onto myEQEs.

    If its more about corrections due to errors in papers/other considerations then I can accept the reason as a legitimate delay (but yes, its annoying to wait).

    ReplyDelete
  60. 2 weeks is a long time for just technical (IT) issues. I suspect its the marking process or the approval stage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They have had the final meeting and the results have been decided on. Short of some formatting decisions in the letters, it's very difficult to understand what the technical issues could be, and I wonder whether they're having to update examiner's reports or something but can't help but think that they don't have to issue those alongside results.

      Delete
  61. The problem is, the information so far has been so unreliable that a big part of me still thinks the results will be out any moment. It's going to be hard for me to switch that stress off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel the same way. This email seems like a way to avoid any additionnal phone call/email regarding the results release... Throwing July 15 as a date is just plain bizarre if the problem is just a technical issue. Two weeks would be understandable if they had to change the marking in paper A, C and/or D but it doesn't seem to be the case since the letters are suposedly already prepared... Nothing in this situation makes sense.

      Delete
  62. I just called the helpdesk, and after grilling them for 15 minutes, I could eventually give them my candidate number, and they told me I passed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? Has anyone else tried this?

      Delete
    2. I very much doubt that they would be allowed to do this given that they would not be able to verify who they're actually providing results to over the phone.

      Delete
    3. They don't issue results to people by phone

      Delete
    4. Good try.

      Delete
  63. how come this guy thinks he is funny?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

1 – 200 of 366 comments Newer Newest