The EQE "Pre-Exam" - Who Needs It?

A concerned reader has written to the IPKat with the following:

"I’m having trouble obtaining information on the new “pre-examination” for the EQE and wondered if any enlightened Kats know how it is going to work. It would appear that this new exam is due to be held in 2012 for the first time, and can be taken by those with at least 2 years relevant experience. By then I will have had 3 years experience, and would have been expecting to take the usual A, B, C and D papers without any pre-exam. But do I now have to take the pre-exam in 2012, before taking the real exams in 2013, extending my minimum qualification time by a year? Or, as suggested by one particular reader in a previous IPKat post, will this be a transitional year? That is, will those with 3 years experience, who could have enrolled for the usual papers, be able to enrol for the proper exams without having to take the pre-exam? I note that the EPO website is resplendent with exam information, but seems rather silent on this point.

I also note that the CIPA Journal, April 2010, had a short piece on the pre-exam on p217, however the “clarification” that “as long as you are already in the EQE system by 2012, you do not need to take the Preliminary Examination” doesn’t really clarify anything for me, because I am not sure what being in the EQE system means – does it mean that I must have already taken some exams before 2012 or does it mean that I must have enrolled by July 2011 for the first ones to be taken in March 2012?"

The IPKat and his various helpers are unfortunately unable to provide a clear answer to this question.  Can any readers help?

Want to pass your EQE ... and looking for a book?

Are you thinking of becoming a patent attorney in Europe? Taking the European Qualifying Examinations? Hoping to pass? Says the IPKat, here's something for you to read, depending on your predilections, your preferences and your pocket.

ABC/D Comprehensive: a comprehensive analysis of the European Qualifying Examination for Candidates preparing for the exam, Brian Cronin (Patskills). Web page here. Available from Unibook here. 162 pages. Price $34.

"This book is a comprehensive analysis of the European Qualifying Exam for European Patent Attorney candidates preparing for the exam. The book’s title alludes to the fact that paper D lays a legal foundation for the legally-oriented practical papers A, B and C.

It is designed principally for candidates who are embarking on their EQE preparations, to enable them to lay the foundations of effective exam preparation and enhance their professional performance. It will also be useful for candidates and resitters who need to review what they have achieved so far in order to consolidate and continue successfully. ABC/D Comprehensive is more than a primer to introduce beginners to the EQE. It provides a thorough understanding of the exam so candidates can orient effectively their exam preparation in order to optimize their return on the considerable investment involved".

Brian Cronin, a British Chartered Patent Attorney and European Patent Attorney with over 40 years experience, is based in Nyon, Switzerland. Brian has been giving advice to candidates for the European Qualifying Exam since 1984 and this book condenses his vast experience into a ready-to-follow guide for trainees.


A Complete Guide to Passing the European Qualifying Exam and qualifying as a European Patent Attorney, by Simon Roberts and Andrew Rudge (5th Edition, 2010 Edition). Available from Sweet & Maxwell here. 691 pages. Price £135.

"Providing you with a comprehensive study guide for preparing for the European Qualifying Exam, the 2010 edition:

* Provides commentary on the relevant law and rules;
* Includes annotated guides to the EPC and PCT;
* Covers the relevant case law you need to know for the exam;
* Includes sample questions fit with model answers;
* Shows you how to best structure your answers so that it fulfils all the requirements examiners are looking for;
* Offers strategies for answering papers A, B, C, D1 and D2;
* Addresses Papers A and B for both the Chemistry and Electricity/Mechanical options;
Takes a topical approach, following all the phases in patent applications".

PCT Procedures and Passage into the European Phase: a practical guide for patent professionals and candidates for the European Qualifying Examination, by Peter Watchorn and Andrea Veronese. Second edition. Published by Kastner. Details from PCT Compass here. 429 pages plus some jolly useful pull-out tables. Price 59 euro.

Say the authors: "This book incorporates and explains all legal changes which came into force for the EPC and the PCT since the first edition of this book was published in 2006 (including the coming into force of EPC 2000). It also preempts changes to the EPC and PCT this year, so it will also be suitable for use in the EQE of 2011".

Merpel doesn't believe that all the guidance on passing the EQEs is published in English. She suspects that there must be something in French, German, Spanish and/or Italian, and asks readers to let her know.

The EQE 'Pre-Exam' - want to have a go?

It's nearly that time of the year again for those wishing to become qualified European patent attorneys.  The 2010 exams will be held on 2-4 March in various places across Europe.  The IPKat wishes all those who are planning to sit any of them the very best of luck, and refers them to his post from last year about useful things to take with you (but do please remember to leave your digital watch at home this time).

(right: the only type of exam the IPKat is prepared to put up with)

Those who are not taking the EQEs this time round may be interested to know that, as from 2012, there will be a new 'pre-exam' that will have to be taken before the real thing.  The EPO have recently slipped out a mock paper for the pre-exam, which is available here in all three official languages.  The Examining Division have the following comments to make about it:

"This proposal includes legal questions and questions directed to aspects of claim analysis. The aim is to test legal knowledge and knowledge of the basic competences related to claim analysis such as novelty, inventive step (problem and solution analysis), “added matter” and clarity, needed for sitting papers A, B, C and D. 

The proposal has been prepared in multiple choice format. With this format for the pre-examination, candidates would not be required to formulate answers to questions, this being tested in papers A, B, C and D, but would need to select from among alternative answers to questions. To facilitate preparation of this proposal, the legal questions are based on paper D1 of 2007 and the claim analysis questions are based on paper A of 2004. 

Although the pre-examination is not relevant for candidates due to sit the EQE in 2010 and 2011, candidates for those years are welcome to try out the proposal preexamination.
The correct answers to the questions can also be accessed via the EQE internet pages.
It should be noted that this proposal has been prepared for evaluation purposes only and should not be taken as indicative of the actual form of the pre-examination to be introduced in 2012."

This Kat, who became qualified only last year, has had a quick look through the mock paper and, without the assistance of his much thumbed copy of Cees Mulder's book, was completely stumped by the first few questions. He can only hope that the real exam will be an open book one, as otherwise he thinks that only those with an eidetic memory would stand a chance. He was also slightly surprised at the new marking scheme, which seems to be partly based on the quiz show QI, since it seems to be quite possible to end up with a negative score.

EQEs - Watch Out!

The IPKat spotted this morning the latest issue of the EPO Official Journal. There isn't really anything of much interest, assuming you have been paying attention to announcements such as Montenegro becoming an extension state (which the IPKat noted here), unless you have a particular interest in new fees in Sweden, the EPO's holidays in 2010 or what happened at last month's meeting of the Administrative Council (which has been written about more extensively elsewhere).

What struck the IPKat, however, was the EPO's new Instructions to candidates concerning the conduct of the European qualifying examination, which includes the following rule:

The IPKat is fairly sure the rules weren't this strict last year, otherwise he would have worried about taking his new Casio watch into the exam hall with him, but maybe he has missed out on the latest advances in digital watch technology. Given all the stuff that it is possible to legitimately take to the exam, how is it possible to cheat at the EQEs with a digital watch? Or is this perhaps about the possibility of annoying bleeps? Can anyone assist with a reasoned explanation?

EQE Results

Today is the day that hundreds of candidates who took the European Qualifying Exams back in March find out whether they have the results they have been hoping for (from the EPO here - user name and password required).

(right: buy this lovely 'graduation cat' from here for only $24.95)

The IPKat would like to congratulate all those who have managed to get (at least some of) the results they wanted, and expresses his sincerely heartfelt condolences to those who didn't. Remember that the deadline for registering for the EQEs in 2010 is coming soon!

By the way, this Kat is particularly pleased as he now appears to be fully qualified, and will shortly have a few more letters after his name to add to the collection.

The EPC "Ten Day Rule" - how not to use it

The IPKat thanks Darren Smyth for informing him of an unusual EPO Technical Board of Appeal decision.  This decision relates to a very esoteric corner of the European Patent Convention, but one that all European patent attorneys have to be careful to get just right, because the consequences of failure can be catastrophic. 

Guiding a patent application through the procedures laid down by the EPC can be a tricky business, and is very frequently dependent on performing certain things within specified timescales.  Some of these deadlines are, if missed, more fatal than others.  One fatal deadline is that for filing an appeal against a decision of the EPO.  According to Article 108, this must be done within 2 months of notification of the decision.  

All European patent attorneys know that there is a special 'grace period' of 10 days that, in most cases, applies to these deadlines (although they sometimes don't like to tell their clients this).  This is available under Rule 126(2), which states that communications are deemed to be notified 10 days from posting.  The specified period therefore runs from the end of this 10 days.  Calculating the correct date on which something must be done by is, naturally, an essential feature of being able to pass paper D of the European qualifying examinations.  

It may therefore surprise some of the IPKat's readers that the decision in question, T 2056/08, results from what appears to be a misunderstanding of the EPC by an applicant's European representative.  The decision related to an application that was refused by the EPO, the examining division notifying the representative of this in a letter dated 21 July 2008.  Applying the 10 day rule and the 2 month period under Article 108, the final date for filing a notice of appeal, and paying the appeal fee, was then Tuesday 30 September 2008 (because periods in months are calculated to the end of the month: Rule 131(4)).  The representative, however, believed that this date was 1 October 2008 instead, which they obtained by adding 10 days on to 21 September 2008.  This resulted in the EPO finding that the appeal was not filed in due time.

Surprisingly, the representative disagreed, arguing that the EPO had got it wrong.  Unsurprisingly, the Board of Appeal decided that the EPO had got it right, and summed things up as follows:

"Although it has become customary to refer to the appeal period as "two months plus ten days", this case shows that this is an inexact formula. The ten days are not added on after the two months period, or are calculated arbitrarily from the date of the decision or from a date two months thereafter. Rather, the ten days specify a period after which delivery and therefore notification is presumed, and the two months period stipulated in Article 108 EPC starts from the day of the presumed (if delivery has taken place within the ten days period) or actual (if delivery has been effected after the ten days period) notification. Thus, if any rule of thumb could be suggested to calculate the appeal period, it should be "ten days plus two months" rather than, as was argued by the applicant, "two months plus ten days"." (reasons, point 4)

Rather than indulging in any schadenfreude, the IPKat merely notes that there are only two people having a residence or place of business in the country in question who have passed the EQEs, and the representative in this case is apparently not one of them.  For more details, see the IPKat's previous post here.

Ten Days that Shook the World here and here

EQE Implementing Regulations

The IPKat thanks David Holland for being the first to make him aware that the eagerly-awaited implementing regulations for the European Qualifying Examinations have now been published, and are available here.  Significantly, the anticipated rule about 3 and 4 year degree courses has failed to appear, with Rule 11(2) requiring only that the degree is a minimum of 3 years in duration.  Other than this, there appears to the IPKat's eyes very little that is contentious, with the possible exception of the new fee structure for taking the exams.  

(right: Tufty brushes up on his EPO case law for next year)

Under the new fee structure, re-taking will become progressively more expensive with each attempt after the first retake, with a 50% increase for the second retake, a doubling for the third retake and a quadrupling for the fourth and subsequent retakes.  The IPKat suspects that by the third or fourth retake the candidate (or, more likely, his/her employer) might possibly start to consider whether being a patent attorney was the right career choice.  Any candidates thinking of filing an appeal after being unsuccessful might think again when noting that the appeal fee will be six times the basic fee for taking the exam. 

Tufty wonders what made the Supervisory Board state in Rule 29 that the new regulations do not apply to this year's EQEs. Haven't they already been held?

Good luck for the EQEs!

The IPKat would like to wish all those taking the European qualifying examinations, which are being held over the next few days, the very best of luck. Just remember: there is only one true answer, which is one the examiners want to see.  Do your best at guessing what this is and you should be fine. 

(right: a traditional lucky Japanese cat, available to buy here)

For tips on what to take with you, there are some helpful (and some not so helpful) suggestions here.  

EQE data overload

Following the IPKat's little rant last week, he has been passed some more details and further anonymous comments on the contentious subject of the EQEs.  The document he was pointed to first (now posted on the IPKat's Google Groups website) contains some very interesting details about the reasons behind the recent changes made to the EQE Regulations (available here), and some clear pointers to the form the Implementing Regulations will take, once they have been finalised. The main points appear to be that the language requirement relating to paper C will be abolished as from 2010, and that a minimum of four years full time education at university level will be required in order to take the EQEs after 3 years in the profession.  A draft proposal to restrict the books that candidates are allowed to take into the exams has apparently been dropped. The IPKat is not really too bothered by either of the current proposals, and in particular welcomes the abolition of the paper C language lottery, although he has commented previously on the apparently arbitrary nature of the 3/4 year requirement, which doesn't really make any sense (except if you don't like UK candidates qualifying too early).  

The IPKat has also been pointed to a very illuminating document, available in full from the EPO here. This provides a summary of the pass rates and numbers of people in each member state who are entitled to call themselves "European Patent Attorney".  Parts of this summary were apparently used in illustrating the proposals for the new Regulations on the EQEs.  What the IPKat was interested, and a little surprised, to see was the large number of qualified EPAs still on the register that have never passed the exams.  This is shown in the following figure (click for a larger view):

According to these figures, in 2007 there were 8866 EPAs on the register, 5339 of which had passed the EQEs. Quite a large proportion, totalling 3527 EPAs (40%), had not qualified by passing the exams. Instead, these attorneys had qualified automatically by being already entitled to act as attorneys before their state joined the EPC (the so-called "grandfather clause" of Article 163 EPC1973). A large majority will, of course, be resident in the three main countries of the EPC: Germany, France and the UK. This means that many of these attorneys will have been calling themselves EPAs for the past 30 years. 

If the IPKat had his way (which, of course, will not happen), all of these attorneys would also be sitting the papers to be taken by prospective EPAs next week.  Some of them, he suspects, would inevitably fail.  Would this be a bad thing? If the EPO is serious about "raising the bar", one of the justifications for the proposed changes to the EQE regulations, should they not also ensure that all those having the right to call themselves a European Patent Attorney are actually qualified to the same standard?

A related point that keeps coming up, which the IPKat cannot confirm for certain, is how many of those on the EQE Examination Committe have actually sat and passed the exams they are setting and marking.  It would be nice to know that they have all passed the same test that they expect others to pass. After all, it would be a bit disturbing if university examination papers (say) were set by people with only honorary degrees, would it not?

Probably the most interesting figure from the document is the one that was used in the draft regulations.  The following figure shows the numbers of candidates overall having taken one or more exams over the period from 1998 to 2007:

Are the exams getting harder, are there more candidates being registered who are less able to pass the exams, or is there some other reason for the increase in numbers in candidates not correlating well with an increase in numbers qualifying? The IPKat doesn't know.

Some more interesting data that the IPKat gleaned from the EPO document illustrates the difference between those in the big three member states (DE, FR, GB) trying to become qualified as EPAs compared to those from states not having one of the official languages as their national language.  From the results in 2007 (which, remember, was a particularly bad one for paper C), 29.5% of UK candidates who took one or more papers became EPAs, while only 19.7% of French candidates and 18.1% of German candidates passed. Dutch candidates did slightly better with 20.3%.  For other non-EPO language countries, however, the picture looks a bit more grim.  Only 9.4% of Italian candidates made it, and a mere 5.6% of Spanish candidates passed.  As the following figure shows, very few Spanish candidates in total have passed the exams since Spain joined the EPC in 1986, and only 21 were on the register in 2007, the rest being honorary entrants:

The situation for many other countries is even worse, with several countries having no properly qualified attorneys at all.  The IPKat wonders whether any realistic (rather than merely token) efforts are being made to improve this.  He can understand why Spain would like to have Spanish accepted as another official language of the EPC (the same argument would of course also apply to Italy, Greece, Hungary etc.), although he thinks it makes about as much sense as having Welsh an official language of UK patents.

A Curious Kat Speaks

The IPKat has commented twice recently (here and here) about the possible consequences of certain new regulations relating to the European Qualifying Examination, which are referred to here as the IPREE.  The IPKat has not, as yet, seen the fabled document in question and is getting a little puzzled as to why he keeps hearing second-hand accounts of what it allegedly contains, rather than seeing the document itself.  

The IPKat gathers, possibly incorrectly, that the IPREE have been already approved by the Administrative Council of the EPO.  And yet, the IPKat hears, the document itself still has the status of being 'confidential', so cannot be seen by the people to whom it will matter most. This is curious.

The IPKat would therefore very much like to know if such a document exists, and if it could be passed on to him so that he can communicate it to all who may be interested.

UPDATE: The IPKat's plea has been answered.  The document is not apparently the latest version, but is quite informative nonetheless.  Axel Horns has helpfully provided a summary on his own blog. 

The EQEs and Languages

A couple of work colleagues of the IPKat's newly-installed amenuensis Birgit, Paul Briscoe and Daniel Weston, were wondering about what might be happening to the regulations for the European Qualifying Examination, and wondered if the IPKat's readers might be able to assist them.  He is, of course, happy to help and would in any case like to know as well.

The IPKat commented recently (here) about one apparently particularly divisive part of the proposed new implementing regulations (which the IPKat has still not yet seen in full: can anyone forward a copy to him?).  Another, not quite so contentious but nevertheless important, change has also been mooted, this time relating to the number of languages a prospective EPA will need to be familiar with when taking paper C (opposition).  

The question is whether the new regulations (available here, ici & hier) will require all the examination documents to be made available in all three EPO languages, and not just two as they are at the moment (meaning that at least one document will not be in your preferred language).  For English speakers, this generally means that you need to pick either French or German and hope that the document that turns out to be not in English is not too crucial (which, unfortunately for this Kat, it was last year). For those fluent in two of the languages this is, of course, not an issue so you can stop reading now.

The relevant bit of the current regulation (which applies to the 2009 exams) is Article 15, which states:

"Languages

(1) The examination papers shall be drawn up in the three official languages of the EPO and all candidates shall receive them in all three languages.

(2) At least three separate and different documents on the state of the art shall be supplied with the examination paper mentioned in Article 13(3)(c). Such documents shall each be drawn up in one of the official languages and be accompanied by a translation into at least one of the other official languages. The three official languages shall always be equally represented. The aforementioned examination paper shall be accompanied by a glossary of the specialist terminology contained in the prior art documents in all the languages requested under paragraph 3.

(3) The candidates' answers should be given in one of the three official languages. Nevertheless, candidates may, if they so request when enrolling for the examination, submit their answers in another language being an official language of a Contracting State. In such cases, the Secretariat shall have a translation made in one of the official languages of the EPO and shall submit the translation together with the original answers to the appropriate examination committee."

The relevant bit of the new regulation (which will apply to the 2010 exams) is Article 12, which states:

"Languages

(1) The examination papers shall be drawn up in the three official languages of the EPO and all candidates shall receive them in all three languages.

(2) The candidates’ answers shall be given in one of the three official languages of the EPO unless otherwise prescribed in accordance with paragraph 3.

(3) The IPREE may contain special provisions concerning the use of an official language of a contracting state other than one of the official languages of the EPO."

What the IPKat would like to know is whether this means that all the examination papers (including the state of the art documents in paper C) will be available in all three languages, or whether (as he suspects) there is something else specific in the IPREE that applies.  Can anyone help?  If anyone has a copy of the proposed IPREEs, the IPKat would be very interested to see them, and will happily make them available for all to see.

More EQE nonsense

The IPKat has been made aware, via several sources, of apparently impending changes to the regulations for becoming a qualified European patent attorney. One of these sources, Marie Jansson, has helpfully provided the following summary of the issue, which the IPKat would like to pass on to his readers.

"I have recently come across an amendment to the regulation on the European qualifying examination (REE) that may be of interest to you/IPkat. Although mostly sensible, i.e. introducing one exam a year earlier than the rest to prevent re-sit students from repeating all the exams year after year, the REE has slipped in a rather contentious point in Annex 3.

Annex 3 provides that enrolment for the EQE will require a four-year training period for those who have completed a three-year university course. As a majority of UK trainee patent attorneys fall within this category, an increase of one year will have a massive impact on both the selection of trainees and the costs of training as per David Bradley in the January edition of the CIPA journal. Mr. Bradley points out that it seems strange to accept that students who have less scientific technical knowledge would need more time during their training contract where the focus is on legal and practical skills.

Strongly objected by CIPA, (Mick Ralph collecting evidence on the exact numbers to be affected), the real shock of the amendment is the accompanying comment:

'In practice, only UK candidates with bachelor degrees with honours will be disadvantaged. However, UK candidates increasingly have MSc (minimum four years) or PhD degrees.'

This seems to suggest that the EPO is equating a bachelors degree obtained in the UK as weighing less than that obtained elsewhere because it took less time. This proposal could then be interpreted to be anti-European after the introduction of the Bologna Process and the transfer of qualifications directive. I wouldn’t like to suggest discrimination, but how else could you justify such a move?

If its the high failure rate of the UK students that have caused this amendment then this could be perhaps justified. However, it is well known that UK candidates’ pass rates are consistently well above average as is demonstrated by the following graph:


Given that the UK pass rate is already higher than average it seems quite irrational to implement a change which requires additional training for candidates of a country which already has a higher pass rate than most.

So maybe there is the potential for Judicial Review using the German courts; perhaps the British IP industry will rally against these proposals and the ensure they never come into force. All that is certain is, if this does come into force, the UK will be unjustifiably biased."

This particular Kat, who has yet to pass all the required exams, is a little wary of expressing an opinion either way. He does, however, think it is a little odd to propose arbitrarily disqualifying a whole group of able people on the basis that their technical training is not sufficient. This Kat's own particular four year University course was an awfully long time ago, and he can't believe that extra year really made much difference in the end. It's all very well making sure that standards are kept high, but quite another thing to discriminate on irrelevant grounds. What should surely matter is how well one can do the job, which the EQEs should surely aim to be testing if they have any point to them at all. What next, the IPKat wonders? Proof of residency in Germany?

Merpel warns the IPKat to be careful; how do you know those papers are really marked anonymously?

What should you take with you to the EQEs?

IPKat reader and ukpatents member Charlie Ashworth, a trainee patent attorney in the Channel Islands, writes with a question about the dreaded European Qualifying Examinations (EQEs), which are coming around again in a couple of months. Charlie says, "I have never before taken open book exams, and am a bit baffled with where to start with what to take in.  The EPO website lists every text book going, but I am sure for those in the know there are prefered texts to arm yourself with!".

(right: the traditional Alderney pastime of wearing fancy umbrellas)

Fellow EQE-taker David has replied with a list of texts that he used in his first (partially successful) attempt last year, which includes the ubiquitous Visser, as well as the less well known (and highly recommended) PCT book by Cees Mulder.  He has also recommended his own cross-referenced EPC, which is available for free from the IPKat's google groups website.  

The IPKat wonders if any of his readers, perhaps those who are preparing to take the EQEs this time round, or who have taken (and preferably passed) them in the past couple of years, have any further useful suggestions for things (and not just books!) to take to the exams with you. 

EQE 2007 - the mystery 10 marks explained

A little bird has informed the IPKat of a recent decision by the EPO Disciplinary Board of Appeal that casts some light on what went wrong with paper C of the 2007 European qualifying exam. As all candidates will know, the pass rate for this exam was substantially lower than for previous years. This was apparently at least partly a result of the examination board taking the (to some rather surprising) view that there was only one 'correct' document to start from as the closest prior art when considering an attack on inventive step. Starting from another document would therefore result in no points for the attack. The board later relented, and rather surprisingly awarded a blanket 10 marks to everyone who took the paper to account for their inability to foresee that another attack might be possible.  

Before the examination board did so, however, at least one candidate filed an appeal against the decision to award her a fail on the paper. She will, of course, by now already have had another chance at passing by retaking the exams earlier this year. The decision, therefore, is rather pointless for anyone who took and failed the exam in 2007, and is also a strong disincentive for anyone to think about appealing their results (particularly when the examination board will be changing for next year's papers). The decision does, however, have some rather interesting things to say about the examination board's approach in marking the paper, and why it was wrong in principle, including the following:

"The Examination Board itself recognised that the examination committees were wrong to award no points across the board in respect of a particular part of the paper [...]. However, awarding points for an (in the examination committees' and/or Examination Board's view) incorrect yet logical and, in keeping with the recognised practice, justified attack, is not just due practice but is also legally prescribed: under Rule 4(2) and (3) IPREE the number of points to be awarded for every paper (on a scale of 0 - 100) is based on how and to what extent "on the merits of that paper alone, a candidate can be considered fit to practise as a professional representative". This is not reconcilable with marking an examination paper as if it were a list of unrelated individual questions (as in a multiple-choice system) to which there is only one correct answer. On the contrary, the fit-to-practice criterion obliges the examiners in marking the individual parts of the answers not to disregard their merit in the context of the examination paper as a whole [...] and the need to allow for fair marking of answers which deviate from the scheme but are reasonable and completely substantiated [...]. This is something to which every candidate has a legal entitlement". (point 5 of the reasons)

The DB considered that the blanket awarding of 10 points was a violation of the law, and the EB acted beyond its powers (ultra vires) in doing this. The fact that no candidate was disadvantaged by this award did not offset the illegality of the measure, nor was it an appropriate way of offsetting the legal disadvantage incurred by individual candidates owing to a specific infringement of marking principles.

The DB decided that the appellant would be allowed to keep her extra 10 marks, because they had been awarded to everyone, but also ordered the examination committee to re-mark the paper and base its decision on the marking plus an extra 10 marks.

The IPKat thinks that, although the outcome is a little strange and could result in someone passing who might justifiably have failed, this is the only possible outcome that could have resulted once the DB decided that the EB had acted illegally. For those who didn't make it this year, the decision does provide some food for thought, particularly if anyone is considering (or has already filed) an appeal this time. Would it be worth the effort? Or is it better to simply have another go next time round?

EQE nightmare over (for another year)

IPKat co-blogmeister David has just come back from an enforced absence due to taking the European Qualification Examinations (EQEs). For those readers unfamiliar with the EQEs, these consist of three very hard days of exams, with the prospect at the end of it (after a few months for the examiners to mark the papers) of being able to call oneself a European Patent Attorney and represent others before the European Patent Office.

(right: this is how the EQEs feel)

The exams themselves are not easy. There has also been some controversy recently about the paper 'C' exam relating to opposition proceedings (see previous IPKat post here). In this Kat's considered opinion, this year's lot (at least for electromechanical-types) were not too bad, and the expected nightmares over the recent transition to EPC2000 largely failed to materialise (thankfully).

Papers A and B were pretty standard, with no shock surprises for anyone (except perhaps for those unfamiliar with weighing letters or computer joysticks). Paper D, in its two parts, was also surprisingly unsurprising, with only a couple of issues about what EPC2000 meant compared to the old law. Paper C, however, still looks like posing some troubles. This year the examiner's apparently thought that they would put the 'closest prior art' issue largely to one side and instead give candidates plenty of work to do over the 6 hours allotted. Not only was the most important document long and only available in French and German, but the attacks required were numerous, tedious and very very time consuming. This Kat has never seen 6 hours fly by so quickly, and has a troubling suspicion that he might be seeing Bristol again this time next year.

(right: IPKat David takes a well-earned rest)

The IPKat would very much appreciate (and thinks that his readers might also be interested to read) any comments from other candidates who sat one of more of the EQEs this year, or indeed from others with experience of doing them before. We know the EPO is listening...