 |
| By DALL·E, OpenAI |
There are a lot of people arguing that we should go back to the in-person exam. But that can only happen if some organisation is willing to organise it and/or pay for the organisation. The EPC is silent about who should bear the costs for the EQE, so it has been a struggle between the EPO and the epi / national offices as the EQE has grown from tens of candidates candidates to a couple of thousand. The system is very dependent on the many people who kindly sacrifice their free time organising / making / marking exams.
For example, the figures in 2007 were:
"All in all, the cost of the 2007 examination came to EUR 7 167 000.
Of this, EUR 2 681 000 (estimate based on EPO cost levels) was contributed through the working time of professional representatives made available free of charge and EUR 108 000 (estimate based on EPO cost levels) through kind support from national patent offices in the form of premises and staff.
Receipts from fees amounted to EUR 652 000.
The remaining costs totalling EUR 4 378 000 were borne by the EPO."
This was the main reason to introduce the Pre-exam - with the increasing number of resitters in the system, the EPO calculated that their costs would rise to 8 500 000 in 2018.
Whether you want it or not, the EQE will change. I have no idea what the current online exams cost, but it must be a lot less than in-person, so it will stay online.
Longer exams do not work online, and there are many countries that have health and safety rules which oppose having to be present for 90 minutes without a bathroom break. So, they have to move to shorter exams.
Also, it is getting harder to find enough volunteers, so they have to move to exams that are less time-intensive to make and less time-intensive to mark.
Online is a good move. Keeping exam fees low so that it is accessible to candidates is also good. Many firms do not support their candidates financially which is an unfortunate thing of the profession.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree. They should also not have the increasing fee for resitters for the same reason - many candidates have no choice but to pay themselves, and they may not even get moral support from their employer, such as time off or fewer cases around the exam.
DeleteThere should also never be a limit on the number of times that a candidate can take an exam.
I completely agree with you Pete. It is already punishing to have to re-take the exam again and pay the fees again. With the cost of living crisis currently take place across Europe, the EPO could really get rid of this very unpopular fee increasing business for retakers. What they also need to realise is that candidates are having to revise and prepare in their spare time along with their full-time jobs and home life commitments. Some will have more flexibility than others.
DeleteThis is slightly beside the point but nevertheless linked to exams in some way. I must confess that I am a bit disappointed over how low wages are for qualified patent attorneys. I've worked in Spain, UK and Germany and it seems that there is not much appreciation over how difficult these exams are from others in the legal professions. Compared to our legal peers e.g. solicitors, they earn a lot more and the bar for entry is lower. It's been on the news lately in the UK of a bidding war for newly qualified solicitors with huge attractive starting salaries of £125K to £150K. You don't earn anywhere near that at the start of your careers in the patent profession unless you are a partner with at least 10 to 15 years' experience.
ReplyDeleteI hope that patent firms start to increase salaries dramatically if we are to hold on to new and existing talent within the IP profession.
It is very relevant to the general EQE discussion. You make a very good point - the barrier to entry must match the reward. Otherwise, there will be no-one wanting to do it. I think the salary in NL of a qualified EPA with 2-3 years post qualification experience is about EUR 100K, excluding bonuses - that is a good salary. But trainees are paid much less, so it take some time to get to that level.
DeleteOne exclusive right that EPA's currently have is representing before the UPC (after the initial "grandfathering") but I cannot see that lasting. The UPC is an EU court, and nothing to do with the EPC. They will be applying a harmonised patentability / infringement EU law which is based on the current national laws. So, there is no ability / competence reason to exclude an nationally qualified patent attorney (who has only passed an EU national qualification exam and not the EQE) from also qualifying for the UPC by just taking a litigation certificate course.
And, yes - we are not well respected as a group by other members of the legal profession. US attorneys consider us little more than "patent agents", a lot of judges hate dealing with patent attorneys because they have little experience with pleading, some national attorneys with their own qualification exams think the EQE focuses too much on procedural law. Just passing a difficult exam does not get respect on its own - our legal colleagues are basing their opinions on interactions with European Patent Attorneys.
My own experience is that the EQE qualification is a very narrow start, and that you need to broaden your knowledge and experience much more to be useful and respected. For example, clients need IP advice (including trademarks, designs, copyright, trade secrets) and not just patent advice. They need you to estimate whether there is infringement or not. They want to know if the application will be granted in US, CN, JP etc. They want to know what a patent application will cost them over the next 2 years, and after PCT entry. They want i-Depot's filed. They want EP patents quickly granted (more than requesting PACE :-). They want NDA's checked. You learn none of this during the EQE. I learned how to write a notice of appeal by using the excellent Müller / Mulder book on Success in Oppositions and Appeals.
Hopefully, you learn from your colleagues, but I have encountered many old-fashioned patent attorney firms where you remain very specialised. I have also encountered many old-fashioned patent attorneys who prefer it to stay like that ;-)
But my advice to patent attorneys is to keep developing as a well-rounded adviser - see this epi article from Tony Tangena
Having compulsory permanent education for EPA's would make a big difference, because employers would simply factor it into their budgets, and their would be little resistance. It would also improve the opinion of fellow legal professionals and national attorneys who do this naturally.
DeleteIn Germany, salaries for trainees and patent attorneys are not great. Plus, you are expected to fund your own studies towards qualification. I don't know why but it feels like we are underselling our own profession. I agree with the above that the qualifications must match salary expectations and I suspect the majority of trainees and newly qualified attorney think that salaries should be much higher.
DeleteSalary is very important in the IP profession. There was an uproar when EQE 2020 was cancelled because many trainees knew that they will be stuck on the same wage. Luckily, I knew many firms in the UK who compensated by raising salaries significantly. I hope this continues as IP is competing with other peifessions who pay the same or even more e.g. software engineers, solicitors
DeleteWho will pay for an in-person exam? Wait a minute Pete but EQE has never been for free before.
DeleteI sat EQE for several years from pre-exam to papers and resit many of them and I spent thousand of € just partially founded by my company. What they just asking for, more money? It really worth spending that much for such qualification?
Anonymous November 6 is right, moreover once lawyers obtained national qualification they do not have the commitment to take further exams. And the representation of a lawyer is mandatory unlike ours.
DeleteLet's be realistic, EQE should be hold by an academic institutions not by an Office of bureaucrats.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any examples where a similar qualification exam is offered without coupling it to their own course? Or a university willing to offer such a course accessible in every EPC state?
DeleteAre there any academic institutions who want to do it at all?
I get your point but now already myself (partially qualif) and every colleague I know have passed the exam whit a CEIPI, Deltapatents or other training courses.
DeleteEQE cost to me till now an mount of about 10.000 € comprising enrlolment taxes first attempt and resiting some papers at least one time, training courses (pre-exam and papers) reference books etc. And i'm not still trhough.
eEQE is a good thing to me in order to lower the cost of the exam but honesty the IT system is still poor and inadeguate.
A course basically saves you a lot of time organising the materials yourself, but at a cost. A big advantage is also that you actually spend the time on the studying because you are at the course, so for some, it also motivates.
DeleteBut following a course is not a magic path to success - you still have to study the materials and practice a lot of questions / exams.
My feeling is that the most important factors are being able to actually spend the time for preparation, and to have support either from other candidates or your firm/department.
It would be good to get feedback from a wide-range of ex-candidates about whether they think it was worth the investment. It is probably different between states with national examined qualifications and those without.
ReplyDeleteIn general, I think it is a good path to some of the knowledge that you need, and the title reassures clients, but, for an actual European Patent Attorney, it focusses too much on just getting rights granted before the EPO and EPO procedures. After qualification, you immediately have to deal with subjects such as contract law, transfers of property, judging technical infringement, rights outside EP, trade secrets, trademarks & designs, which are covered in national qualifications for those who have them. It is disappointing to see these areas are still completely missing from any discussion on competence and knowledge for EU patent attorneys. They do not need to be tested at the EQE, but they should be offered as supplementary modules for those who do not have adequate national qualifications, and be included as part of a permanent education.
Unfortunately, there is no marketing by the epi to explain to clients why they need an EU patent attorney, and the help that they can give. The truth about the guaranteed level of skills offered may be too embarrassing - "we will try our best to get a patent only by the EPO, but we cannot comment on how useful it could be for your business or whether it has a chance of grant anywhere else". This truth is the reason for the lack of respect of the title form national patent attorneys.
This marketing is certainly done at national level, like in NL.
If you have a background in pharma/biotech/chemistry I do not recommend becoming a patent attorney. I work as a trainee in-house patent attorney (passed B, C and D in 2022; but failed paper A) in a big pharmaceutical company, the salary of trainees/qualified attorney do not match the level of qualifications and responsibilities we have. There are many other functions within our company for persons with a similar background and that have much better salaries and better growth opportunities, e.g. business development, clinical researcher, safety, regulatory, medical writing.... Regulatory functions and Safety also have certain professional examinations to pass, but from my understanding they don't require the amount of studying required for the EQE (bu don't quote me on that :-))while at the same time these examinations are not required for being promoted to the next career level. Also, if you are a woman with background in pharma/biotech/chemistry; you are likely to already be in the end of your twenties as these technical fields often require a PhD. This means you might have to study while being pregnant or having young kids. I have been in that situation and it was horrible. I honestly regret making the move to the IP field and wish I would have gone for a different function. I probably already would have had two promotions instead of being stuck being a trainee patent attorney for 5 years already. And I wouldn't have to miss so much family time which I will never be able to get back.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry, I am a Mec/El and I failed paper A too. 5 or 6 independent claims were so faraway from my ordinary drafting work and even form results is still not clear to me how many they wanted. Probably they can't tell too.
ReplyDeleteIn some ways, they make it up as they go along. I heard from someone who failed by 2 marks in an exam where they lost 2 marks for having an incorrect 2-part form. Obviously, the candidate missed a lot more, but I remember when they combined the exams and stated at a Tutor's Meeting that "no-one would fail because of an incorrect or missing 2-part form".
DeleteThat is why the new EQE format will not help at all to fix such problems. They could already make the marking more realistic and practical for the current exams, but few people in the EQE system are actually bothered about fair exams.
EPO has a revenue of 2 billion of Euro par year without any supervision and they want us to believe that they don't have the money to arrange a qualifying examination for patent attorneys?
ReplyDeleteTheoretically, they could pay for it and even provide all the resources needed for the organization. But the EPO will keep looking for the most efficient way to hold the exam, which is online and mainly multiple-choice questions.
DeleteYes because whit 2 billion of Euro of revenue per year form the EPO, listen about professional representatives that made available their time free of charge and national patent offices supporting in the form of premises and staff seems quite unbelivable and ridicolous for me.
ReplyDelete