The decision is available here as well as a communication providing more details.
Some comments:
- "composed of an equal number of representatives of the EPO and the epi" - stresses that it is a joint EPO/epi exam. That saves me having to comment on many blog comments :-)
- "the nearly 3.000 people that participate and are involved in the organisation of the Exams" - based on last year's figures, approx. 900 Pre-Exam, 1700 Main Exam candidates, 400 organizers/invigilators.
- "actively discussing solutions ... strike the right balance between the legitimate expectations of candidates for the 2020 exams and .... health and safety" - thanks to those involved for considering all the options. It is an extraordinarily complex issue to deal with in difficult times, as they also have to consider the future impact of any decisions.
- "the EPO and the epi need to ensure adequate health and safety conditions" - at the moment, there is no agreement yet on what precaution are adequate, but this should develop in the next months as the lockdowns are eased.
- "the EPO and the epi need to guarantee the same basic conditions for candidates from all EPO member states, i.e. that they can all travel to one of the exam venues" - this seems like a big challenge, but could be eased by having more local exam venues.
- "the EPO and the epi need to ... avoid jeopardizing the EQE 2021" - yes, this is a higher priority, and will already require a huge effort.
- ** to see comments above 200, scroll to last comment and click Load more ... **
- "... anyone who so wishes will be allowed to enroll for the 2021 main examination, provided that the [A. 11 REE] conditions ... are fulfilled." - I had to read this a few times.
- Based on Art. 11(7) REE "Moreover, if such a pre-examination is held, candidates who apply to be enrolled for the examination must have obtained a pass grade in the pre-examination", it means that it is not necessary to have passed a Pre-Exam to take part in the Main Exam 2021 (confirmed by Cees Mulder in a LinkedIn post and on the DeltaPatents EQE blog).
- It also means that being enrolled for Pre-Exam 2020 is NOT a requirement, so anyone who satisfies the Art. 11 REE requirements can enroll.
- So very good news in these dark times for the Pre-Exam candidates :-). They have one less worry going forward. Big thanks to the Board for doing this! And a big thanks also to the EQE organisation for agreeing to handle more candidates in 2021.
- I have already seen many comments that it is unfair to others, but they still have to pass the Main Exam. The Pre-Exam was added as an extra hurdle to prevent unprepared candidates sitting the Main Exam - the hurdle has just been removed. 70-80% of the candidates would have passed anyway.
- "Candidates ... enrolled for 2020 main examination papers ... considered ... enrolled for those papers in 2021" - so no re-registration or additional booking charges for Main Exam candidates.
- EQE 2021: "main examination only, ... answers will be marked either on the basis of the legal texts and document versions in force on 31 Oct 2019, or ... on 31 Oct 2020, depending on which ... would give ... the higher mark." - a practical solution, so Main Exam candidates are not forced to update everything.
- However, I would advise updating anyway because of your daily work. You do NOT NEED to buy new books - look through the Official Journals and PCT Newsletters of the intervening period and update relevant things yourself. Almost every Guidelines or Applicants Guide has change bars or a way of viewing changes. Think about what they could ask at the exam, summarise the relevant sections, and add them to your reference materials. The marking rule at EQE 2021 is your safety net :-)
- There have been a lot of comments in different blogs regarding compensation for Main Exam candidates. Many of the complaints are related to the way in which employers link considerable raises to passing the EQE or limit funding for courses. There is certainly a lot of stress around the EQE. It may be a good moment in the coming months for professional organisations (epi and national patent attorney organisations) to investigate if this is a widespread problem.
- There is also a myth that you need to follow courses and have the most up-to-date books to pass. Courses basically just allow you to optimise your time better, and the learning moment is not really on the course, but afterwards when you put it into practice by answering questions and doing past exam papers. If you have already done a course, go through the materials again, and practice. You do need reasonably up-to-date books and questions/answers - at least 95% of the legal material you need for the exam is the same every year.
- "... a project towards the development and preparation on an e-EQE envisaging the maximum possible use of new technologies ... full digitilization ..." - extremely exciting - exactly the right move at this time to look to the future. This crisis has exposed many weaknesses in the current system. So, we look forward to e-EQE 2022.
- "In 2021, the Exams will be organised according to the current format" - it make sense to use the current pipeline of papers before changing anything. I expect changes to the organization, though. EQE 2021 is planned for 1-4 March 2021, so they will probably move this to avoid flu season (May?). There will be more Main Exam candidates anyway, so extra venues may be necessary. Fewer people per venue and less reliance on travelling can both be achieved by more local/regional exam venues.
- Update: additional info about specific cases at EQE FAQ's
Registering even for a single Main Exam next year would then remove the necessity of passing the Pre Exam permanently I guess? Which probably means that thousands of EPO examiners will register for 2021 as most of them fulfill the conditions...they will need a lot or big venues next year to host everyone ;-)
ReplyDeleteAs that's the case as you rightly pointed out, anyone with 3 years experience just enroll now and skip pre EQE. It's an absolute horror decision.
DeleteNot really as in order to register for any EQE exam you first have to register (Rule 28 IPREE). Only after registration the duties of EPO examiner start to count in order to enrol. So, in short, nobody who wasn't registered already will now sit the exam because of the Pre-Exam gift.
DeleteBut someone like an IP manager who have more than 3 years experience and plan to take pre Eqe next year should enrol and skip the pre EQE
DeleteThis exam is clearly been made redundant.
Yes, anyone who has pre-registered and has the years experience can enroll. The problem with old system were unprepared people doing papers so that will likely happen again. But it is only a problem for the organisation.
DeleteWhy bother with pre EQE. I'm surprise the boards supported this. It is now pointless to bother with pre EQE.
DeletePerceptions are likely to change. Post-corona, a lot of things will seem pointless that seemed important pre-corona.
DeleteWhat would be great is if they could kill two birds with one stone. There is a lot of complaints from the graders that people focus too much on part II of paper D. Why not split Paper D into two different years and flush the pre-exam entirely. That being said, I lost a fair amount of money taking the pre-exam and it really doesn't prepare you for the paper D legal questions. Really, multiple choice vs written answers is nothing to compare.
DeleteI'm intrigued to know how would you feel Pete if you were a main EQE candidate now and you've been told your loss year is not accounted for but your colleague a year below you has just been given a free pass and will be taking the same exam as you next year?
ReplyDeleteYou've worked hard last year to pass the preEQE but it is now no longer necessary for others to do the same. I understand things are now different but the problem I would expect both candidates to be treated fairly.
I think the decision is fair for preEQE but clearly they have not accounted for main EQE who are just as affected. No one is asking for a free pass but you can't allow all sort of passes and compensation for one group but barely anything for the other group.
I would feel horrible, of course. But when it says they considered options, they will have done this very seriously. Having twice as many Main Exam candidates is going to be a huge problem that they have to deal with. The people on the boards, committees and at the EPO read the blogs, so they will have used it to generate different ideas and different options. In the end, they had to go with something that the EPO and the epi supported, and that did not generate a lot of extra work.
DeleteI do understand the difficulties here. But surely most EPI members would support a bit more discretion for main EQEs given the extremely unexceptional circumstance of this year.
DeleteReading on the other blog, many preEQE candidates also agree that this decision is extremely unfair on mainEQEs.
I would urge the supervisory board to reconsider. No one is asking for a pass but a few marks would do so much good and show alot of goodwill. Something we need right now rather than more anger and resentment. Perhaps allow a voting system for the board. Its a loss year for the main EQE candidates too.
If there was a reasonable proposal, supported by a national attorney organisation, then you may have a chance. But it cannot undermine the role of the Main Exam in showing fit fr practice. And you cannot have half the candidates taking a paper in 2020 getting extra points and the the others not.
Delete"you cannot have half the candidates taking a paper in 2020 getting extra points and the the others not."
DeleteBut we've done basically this in the past with the cold exam-hall compensation.
They have already been given free passes for pre EQEs. I do not see why this cannot be implemented.
DeleteYou could argue those pre EQE candidates this year do not have the right to sit the main EQEs. At least all main EQE candidates have shown they have the right to sit it.
Allowing a few marks to compensate the devastation for this year's main EQE candidates would not bring the main exam into disrepute.
Those points were awarded after the exam, not before. The points can only be awarded if at least one person complains in writing after the exam. They can then decide what is reasonable, and if it is a problem affecting more than one person.
DeleteBut it is also true there was no corona before. We shouldn't be so inflexible and resistant. It is cleae main EQEs are equally as affected as pre EQE but there is something for pre EQE but nothing for the main EQE. That's not fair at all. They have already decided favourably for one group.
DeleteWell, they still have to comply with the rules as if they had would have done the Pre-Exam a year earlier.
ReplyDeleteIt is basically going back to the old system that was used before Pre-Exam was introduced - 3 years experience for attorney at date of Main Exam, four years for an examiner. If they push the date of the exam back, then even more may qualify, unless they change that rule as well.
Going back to the old system would be fine for next year but not this year. By doing this, the supervisory board has completely ignored one group of candidates as though they have not been affected but give all sort of comfort and compensation for another group of candidates. Both have been affected by the covid 19. Hence you can see why main EQE candidates feel unfairly treated and let down.
DeleteI'm not sure I would feel completely happy about the situation in the shoes of an EQE candidate now. Seeing others being given free passes but nothing for yourself must hurt a bit.
DeleteI think a small discretion would not be a bad thing considering they would still require 40 or so marks and unprepared candidates would not get anywhere near that.
The decision today will probably bring more chaos and resentment within the profession. The idea that all candidates are treated fairly in the same situation should be the most important principle of any exam.
ReplyDeleteI don't think many people in the profession (qualified or unqualified) would be too happy with this. When you read it, you can feel why someone taking main EQE exams would feel extremely aggreived.
Yes there are some that want free passes but the majority of finals would want to sit them. I believe they want fair treatment and small compensationary marks would not be an end all or devalue the main exams. I took the EQE in the year when the venue was so cold you could barely write and it was right the EPO back then awarded marks as a principle of fairness. This situation here would completely merit this level of empathy and discretion again.
The difference is that the Pre-Exam is not a final exam, and the Main Exam is.
DeleteThe compensation you refer to is based on the situation during the exam itself. So they do have some possibility next year of compensating based on the situation at particular venues. E.g. if there are some local travel restrictions.
Yes true but that was a decision based on exceptional circumstance with no precedent before that. This is surely another exceptional circumstance? I think it is justified.
Delete"The compensation you refer to is based on the situation during the exam itself."
DeleteIn what way is the present situation different? It too is a "situation during the exam itself". People who took an exam when it was cold in the exam hall were placed at a potential disadvantage. The EPO did not award the marks based on whether these people were actually disadvantaged, some would not have been disadvantaged as coldness in the exam is a known problem and many people wear coats and thick jumpers there. It was sufficient that they were likely to have been unfairly disadvantaged in taking the exam - and the people who now have to wait another year having already exhausted all of the training material clearly have been disadvantaged.
Those points were awarded after the exam, not before. The points can only be awarded if at least one person complains in writing after the exam. They can then decide what is reasonable, and if it is a problem affecting more than one person.
DeleteSo if no one can take EQE 2021 because let's face it, the whole world is waiting for a vaccine which is likely to be 1 year at the earliest. Based on this decision, we are going to have 3 years worth of candidates stuck at the same stage.
ReplyDeleteIt is a credible situation. Any back up plan?
I would not advocate for the exam to be held in May. It never has been and shouldn't be moved with only a few months notice. Everyone is going to gear up for March 2021. Don't start changing dates.
Will there be any guarantee that the EQE mains 2021 will be held?! If there is no plan B for a further corona outbreak the board cannot expect candidates to lose a second year of only studying and no exams... a guarantee is the most essential for EQE 2021 candidates!!!
ReplyDeleteI'm with you Pete. I don't like to see free passes handed out like this but the rules for pre EQE candidates means that the supervisory board can do this.
ReplyDeleteHowever, that does mean (and I do agree with the others) that something must be considered for the main EQE candidates. Perhaps not free marks but are there seriously nothing the supervisory board can think of. It does feel a bit hard on main EQEs guys with the decision today.
I can't see them doing anything with compensation points - it just gets too messy for future years.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a good chance that the epi or EPO organises a series of webinars etc to go through legal subjects, how to do the different papers.
Something like the Candidate Support Program could also be launched, offering some individual feedback, mentoring and advice.
The EPO Academy already has their online EQE preparation courses - they are very reasonably priced already (EUR 350).
Pete. This all benefits mainly pre EQE candidates this year. Many main EQE candidates will now have to pay for courses on their and get materials on their own as most firms only support their candidates once. They would have exhausted their options last year.
DeleteThis is part of the problem with this year's main EQE candidates. Pre EQE candidates now have a huge advantage over their main EQE candidates as they will be paid to go on course near to exam time to maximise their chances, courses paid for, accommodation and materials paid for.
Most course are designed to maximise your chance there and then. Not to mention many would have done alot of the pass papers so it is no longer as effective as doing it the first time round no matter how much you forget, you will always remember some stuff from the paper.
Then there the time firms will allow trainees to do study. Main EQEs would have also exhausted their options here so will now be continually be at a disadvantage.
DeleteIm not sure the supervisory board entirely took this into account.
As above - I meant the time for study leave
DeleteI don't think they would offer this with double the number of candidates for next year.
DeleteI would hope that any employers that have a policy of "once only" for courses and materials reconsider in this unusual year.
DeleteBut, you have to explain what you expect to learn from a course this year that you could not learn by going through the materials last year. I realise that there is an issue with papers, but it is still valuable to do them again.
I would hope so too but the reality is, most firms training budgets account for only once and now they need to support the pre EQE candidates. So where are firms going to find double the money in one year. They are not going to do it and especially in this climax where cash is king at the moment as we try and ride out the coronavirus.
DeleteI appreciate your comments here but I truly do not believe the supervisory board has taken these points fully in their decision.
Not to mention that some trainees have been furloughed. Some will undoubtedly be laid off in this present economic climate once the government furlough schemes are wrapped up. Others will be on reduced time and pay.
DeleteHow are these people supposed to fund training for and sitting the exams? How are cash-strapped employers supposed to do it for a cohort twice the normal size?
I feel lucky that I have not been furloughed and at least have my UK qualification. This, at least, is unlikely to be taken away by such an arbitrary decision.
I have only Paper A left to pass for the EQEs, but my exam prep for it this year really did exhaust pretty much everything left that was even mildly relevant (e.g., exam papers from 15-20 years ago which were blatantly much easier than the present exams). I am left preparing for it a third time next year with no fresh material at all with which to do it. I will be drafting applications but this is not great preparation for Paper A which expects the drafter to do things that a sensible attorney would not do in practice.
Some compensatory marks seems fair for main EQEs if they have now decided to give all pre EQE a free pass.
ReplyDeleteThe decision has clearly and advantageously favour pre EQE. Why would an exam board not treat everybody fairly. They have (intentional on not) created a situation where pre EQE candidates going into main EQE with a huge advantage over the main EQE 2020.
ReplyDeleteHave they really thought about the implications on a practical level. Firms will focus their resources on the pre EQE while main EQE this year are completely left behind and on their own.
Not to mention that they all get a free pass and don't have to sit 4 hour exam which is a massive bonus. This is to account for their Los year and earnings.
ReplyDeleteThey seriously need to consider something more substantial for mian EQE. The decision needs to be balanced for both set of candidates.
We don't know which options they considered.
DeleteLooking at what other exams are doing, they could have developed a formula for resitters of one paper to see if some of them could pass based on the other papers and previous results. But it would be difficult to get agreement on the exact formula.
The decision has meant that main EQE are pitted (and starting from a disadvantaged position) against their pre EQE peers this year for things next year. They are going to be competing for most things next year from resources to slots on courses to accommodation places. Firms will switch to foccussing their resources to pre EQE candidates of this year. This is supply and demand. Double candidates and the same resource in place.
ReplyDeleteThis is absolutely outrageous. Giving free passes for the pre-EQE, the Boards exploit the situation and attempt maximizing the number of enrolments, i.e. admission fees, with no guarantee whatsoever that EQE2021 will be held, not to mention the hollow “electronic exam” promise.
ReplyDeleteTheir frustrations’ aside, candidates should be resilient and bounce back: sit national qualifications first (if possible), become epi student members, and avoid any binding training commitment clauses from their firms.
Many firm have in their contract have training clauses for trainees. For example, there will be clauses in their like we will pay exams once, materials once, training days only given once. If you leave within a year, you need to pay all this back.
Deleteit is very common to have these type of clauses in training contracts. As you've signed up when you want to enter the profession, there is little choice for you not to sign if you want to become an attorney. The leverage is not great for trainees.
It true - its very common in private practice to have these "training" clauses in a trainee's contract.
DeleteI agree, and these clauses remain essential for trainees to train in the best conditions. On the other hand, this allows private practice firms to retain their juniors over the long term without the need of pay raises until qualifications.
DeleteSince lockdowns are likely to last several months (years?), leverage by avoiding expensive training would be a way out, letting supply and demand come into play by switching firms until getting the EQE.
In any case, the current candidates are clearly living through though times, wishing them well ...
How would the organisation guarantee that it goes ahead next year? They can try and reduce the risks, but it will not be insignificant.
DeleteFor the e-EQE, I can assure that things will happen. There were already plans for doing the exam digitally (there was even a pilot for the last 2 years) - but a lot of people were resisting because it was different. That resistance is likely to be less. In the pilot, you did the exams in the current format on a computer, which is not ideal. But you could text search.
There were also ideas in the past to make the Pre-Exam more like the US agent exam, with a pool of questions. It could be taken more than once a year, for example, and you could get the results straight away. The problem was a lack of budget for making and updating the questions, as well as the claims analysis grouping of the questions in such a pool.
The difficult part is changing the format of the exam to better use the available technologies - for example, you can have more visual questions, more use of audio etc. The exam format has not really changed much in the last 20 years.
This all great stuff but for the future.
DeleteWe need actions and help right now for candidates of EQE2020, especially the main EQE candidates who appears to be very unfairly treated by the decision released yesterday.
I can understand not wanting to adopt an approach like the US patent agent exam. It isn't well regarded in US practise - the general consensus is that it does not actually check readiness to practise in any way.
DeleteFor the pre-EQE, which is anyway a multiple-choice exam, I can understand how a computer-based test might be useful. It still can't be done at home, though, due to security issues, so it isn't a total solution.
PS - You will often hear people pooh-pooh the idea that anyone might try to cheat on these exams. In my very limited experience of administering exams in a Chinese university some years ago, if people think it is possible to cheat then some people will definitely do it. Once some people cheat and are seen to get away with it, then everyone cheats because no-one wants to be at a disadvantage unfairly.
At least initially, you will have to go to a test center.
DeleteAt home will never happen - I saw one proposal where you had to leave your webcam on, and show that the room was empty before you start. But even schoolkids have now figured out how to make a video loop and broadcast it when they should be sitting in virtual lessons.
Maybe with a drone behind you :-)
The 2021 exam cannot be moved to May 2021, since this would violate Art. 1(2) REE, second sentence: 'The period between two examinations shall not exceed twenty-five months'. The last possible date to start the examens is end of March 2021. They really made a mess out if this. If the examen was held as it was always has been, this is in Febraury, we wouldn't be is this horrible situation. I've heard that the Exam committee forgot to book some venues in time, so that's why this your the exam was planned so late, but that's only a rumour... .
ReplyDeleteThe exam committee doesn't organise the venue bookings.
DeleteIn the UK, for example, officially the UKIPO is responsible for doing it, but they delegate this responsibility to CIPA. CIPA receives no funding at all for organising the EQEs form either the EPO or the UKIPO, and so has to pay for it out of their general funds. Hence the exams being held somewhere it can be done cheaply - in Walsall.
According to one of the organisers on Twitter, of the money paid in exam fees goes to the cost of the venue. Also, the EPO does not pay the costs of the invigilators, the furniture, or the accommodation.
Apparently the cost of booking the Walsall venue last year was £25k. Next year, even before COVID, they were looking at moving the exam elsewhere as Walsall wasn't big enough to accommodate all the candidates given the requirements from the EPO for spacing of the candidates.
It is also a clause without a sanction. What happens if it stays in March and they have to cancel again due to force majeure? Good look suing the Supervisory Board.
DeleteBesides, there was an exam scheduled in 2020, so they could argue that they complied with the law.
Yes, if they move it to May, a failed candidate could file an appeal that they did not comply with their rules, but the candidate would have to show how that resulted in them failing.
Or they just change the REE (from "held" to "arranged" or "organized")
Oops "form" = "from"; "of the money paid" = "none of the money paid"
DeleteI realise that main exam candidates want to get more, but next year there will be a mix. You cannot tell half the candidates beforehand that they will get extra consideration compared to the rest. It would have to be for everybody, and that is probably going too far.
DeleteThere is a still a system that after the exam, candidates can file a complaint in writing about the exam conditions, and that will be considered on a case-by-case basis. That option remains open anyway.
I understand Pete but you must also understand that preEQE are getting a FREE PASS.
DeleteHow is that fair for the mainEQE candidates who suffered under the same conditions.
Regarding Gilman comments - so where does all the funds from candidates exam fees go to. EPO must pay local patent offices/organisers so that they can secure the best venue for next year. This is no time for messing about.
DeleteEPO must be accountable as well. The money candidates pay must be for exam related things such as booking venues and pay examiners. This must benefit the candidate and examination process.
They should be transparent and show how they spend candidate's money.
There was a document drawn up about 10 years ago, which went through the budget. At least at that time, it was costing the EPO millions each year as the fees did not cover everything. It is probably still available in the Adminstrative Council archive.
DeleteDear Pete, in reply to your message of April 23, 2020 at 12:26 PM: another cancellation in 2021 should be avoided and a guarantee should be given to the candidates right now! Changing the REE from 'held' to 'arranged' would just be totally respectless and would require retrospective effect... Even in these force majeure times, looking a year ahead, one cannot at all claim still that this would be "force majeure" if social distancing and additional measures are by then 'the new normal'. I understand that the EPO and EQE organisation cannot change the whole setup within a year, but every organisation should be capable of booking rooms for local organisation of the EQE in 2021 now, and getting this organised as a backup. Action has to be taken now to make sure everything can be arranged by 2021. If not, the Supervisory board is clearly lacking any respect for this hard time they are giving the candidates, and by that for the whole EQE...
DeleteDear Griet, I agree that there should some changes and there should be a backup plan, but nobody knows yet what the situation will be like next year. I guess we will find out when they open registration on 4 May.
DeleteI understand the concerns EPO has on allowing some compensatory marks to be given as it may devalue but I don't see it this way. Every other organisations has managed to come up with something in these exceptional times apart from the patent profession. I look at final year medical students allowing to pass as an example. Their work is much more significant than the job we do as attorneys.
ReplyDeleteIt is only proper that if they allow a set of candidates to pass pre-EQE and move them along as compensation, they should do the same service for the EQE main candidates by giving a few marks to compensate this year.
A big difference with students is that they were completing years of education in which they were regularly tested. For European patent attorneys, there is generally only the EQE - there is nothing else you can use to extrapolate as evidence of competence.
DeleteIf there is a year where you seem to get through more easily, it will follow you the rest of your career. You will be part of the EQE 2020* attorneys. Some firms will still not give you the raises you want until you actually pass (you will be treated like a grandfather/mother).
It is indeed incomprehensible that this decision was made. I can't imagine that in any university in Europe they will say to the students at their final year that they can't graduate, while at the same time saying to the students in their last but one year that they can advance to the final year without doing any assesment whatsoever. This is in my opinion a justifiable comparison.
DeleteWhy not looking at another way of assessing the candidates to see if they are fit to practise? This profession claims to support innovations, but as for the exams, they are still in the 19th century.
its clearly ironic that we all work in the field of innovation and new exciting technologies, but yet our profession is soo backwards and frankly out of date in terms of assessing candidates.
DeleteThere is no imagination or creativity for updating examination process.
"If there is a year where you seem to get through more easily, it will follow you the rest of your career."
DeleteThere have been a number of cohorts of candidates who have received additional marks, normally because of a mistake on the exam paper by the EPO, but also because of cold exam halls. These people are not known as the 2015* candidates.
This is before we even mention the basic fact that the exams have become progressively more difficult over the years to the point where papers from the 1990's seem positively easy. People who qualified in the 1990's are also not known denigrated for having done so.
And also without mentioning the people who were grandfathered in as EPAs without passing the exams. These people too, are not badly regarded.
They announced the eEQE for that purpose, but it will not happen overnight.
DeleteWhy not? The profession always has to deal with deadlines and unforeseen situations. At the examn there is always an out-of-the-box situation which we, as a candidate, have to deal with.
DeleteDo you think any other professional exam is now postponed to next year? There are lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, notaries, solicitors, company auditors, physicians, and many others professions who can deal with this situation. It is ridiculous that precisely a profession dealing with innovations cannot deal with the current situation.
Dear Gilman Grundy, that is a compensation given after an exam based on complaints filed after that exam. It was not announced beforehand.
DeleteIf the exams were getting difficult, wouldn't the passing grade be going down?
Besides, in the 1990's there was less case law, and the Guidelines was a very thin book. There was a period that the exam was close book - you were only allowed an unannotated EPC. And beware of old exams - every year, the answers are added to the latest reference books.
I am not saying that grandfather/mothers all lack knowledge, but if you are hiring one of them, you need to have that discussion. If someone has passed the EQE, at least you know that at a particular point in time they had reached a certain level. I know some grandfathers/mothers who took the EQE later because of this.
"Dear Gilman Grundy, that is a compensation given after an exam based on complaints filed after that exam. It was not announced beforehand."
DeleteWhich from the point of view of a 2020 candidate seems somewhat academic. Perhaps some people will, in spite of the barriers put in the way of filing an appeal, file one and extra marks or some other compensation will be awarded - but at present this seems very unlikely.
"If the exams were getting difficult, wouldn't the passing grade be going down?"
Not if candidates were putting an ever-increasing amount of effort into preparing for the exams.
And taking Paper C as a (relatively) stable exam, less impacted by the pre-Exam requirement, the fail-rate does seem to have increased over the years. The exam-in-full fail rate for Paper C in 2002 was 33%, for 2005 it was 35%. In 2010, by which time the modular system had been done away with, it was 50%, in 2015 it was 52%, and in 2019 it was 41%.
It's true that the difficulty-increase trend is a lot harder to detect in the EQE stats than it is in the UK exam stats (where it is very obvious that the exams in recent years have been the most difficult set since records began). This is particularly because regular changes in format (e.g., the modular system, the introduction of the pre-EQE etc.) make it hard to make year-to-year comparisons in the EQEs. Additionally various national cohorts (particularly the French) have raised their game in recent years which lowered their fail-rate.
"And beware of old exams - every year, the answers are added to the latest reference books."
Indeed, and I definitely plan to rely as much on the updated exam questions in the Deltapatents/Hoekstra books as possible, as well as the resources that you very kindly make available on your site and for which I and many other candidates are grateful. I hope you will take my comments on this page as they are intended - they are not directed at any person in particular but merely at what appears to be an unfortunate set of circumstances.
Thanks for the kind words.
DeleteI understand the frustrations with the system in general. I have heard the theory before that as the courses & materials got better, the exams have got harder. But there are a lot of candidates who do not follow a lot of courses, and they have just as much chance of passing as before. I would say that the level at least for D has been reasonably constant over the last ten years at least.
"This is before we even mention the basic fact that the exams have become progressively more difficult over the years to the point where papers from the 1990's seem positively easy."
DeleteHindsight in absence of knowledge.
In the 90ies there was no source for old papers than other candidates, but no Compendium or comments relating to a solution, so preparing on old papers was not as today.
It was an examination where the candidate only had a (at that time) blue EPC and a PCT and Paris Convention Leaflet and the fee overview. Period. The books were checked for any written comments or even references and if these were found the book was exchanged for a "fresh, virgin" EPC. And BTW, the EPC did not have a key word index.
For one of the four paper you needed 55 points, not only 50. Compensation was only available within the same year. So examination and resitting was always "in full".
Three of the prior art documents were only available in one single official language (one in DE, one in FR, one in EN only)
anecdotal:
BTW, in the 90ies it (was in principle possible) that no EQE would take place. The rule was:
"A European Qualifying Examination shall normally be held once a year. However, if less than 20 candidates have been admitted, their examination may be deferred until the next examination in the following year, which shall then take place regardless of the number of candidates admitted."
Thanks for the input. I have even heard the opposite opinion (the exams have gotten easier) from people who did it before.
DeleteAs far as I can see, the amount of preparation and the levels required to pass have not changed that much over the years that I have been involved. The formats have just changed.
I agree
DeleteThe examination was completely different.
a.) without any possibility to check case law.
b.) you had to pass all papers at the same EQE.
I have a friend who - over the years in the 90ies - had passed all papers succesfully several times, but never all at the same time, only in the 7th year he achieved it.
I do not know, which approach is more stressful or has the need to be ready as an athlete "on the spot"
I would like to avoid comparing different generations of European patent attorneys in view of paper quality or difficulty.
"I would like to avoid comparing different generations of European patent attorneys in view of paper quality or difficulty."
DeleteIndeed, and a general desire not to make such comparisons, which might not be favourable to one cohort or another within the profession, is yet another reason why there is no "2007* cohort" that is generally considered to have got off easily.
.... because it hardly helped anyone - as far as I remember, the pass rate on Paper C went from something like 15% to 25%, and it was only a single paper.
DeleteE.g. from D 12/07:
www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/d070012eu1.pdf
(there are many others with the same standard text)
6.2 ... "the abstract awarding of marks with no
regard to the fit-to-practise criterion of Rule 4 IPREE or to the individual candidates' examination papers infringes the principle of objectivity in general and Article 8(b) REE in particular..."
6.5 "Any marks awarded for reasons unrelated to the individual candidate's ability to answer the examination questions is absolutely irreconcilable with the aforementioned sole purpose of the EQE ... whatever "overriding" aspects might have been the reason for that measure."
So, in all cases, the appeals were accepted for Paper C - but the only "won" the chance to have their paper re-evaluated. The regulations requires that the marks be based on the answers given in each exam. I do not know how many of those were actually awarded more marks during the re-marking.
How about if you get 45 marks on 1 or 2 papers and not quite enough to get up to 200 overall marks then you are allowed to pass.
ReplyDeleteso in this exam, it could be 50 marks for Paper A, B, C but you only got 45 marks for Paper D. They should consider the mainEQE candidates effects this year and give them the benefit of the doubt.
DeleteThis is one way of applying fairness for this year's mainEQE candidates.
I think you could have a separate compensation within A/B/C as there is a big overlap in what is being tested, and with A/B you sometimes misunderstand the invention and fail that way.
DeleteI don't think you should go under 200 marks overall.
So if you got 70 marks on C, maybe you could compensate at 43 or 44 level on another paper.
But they would have to apply it to all Main Exam candidates in 2021, not just the 2020 "sitters".
Any particular reason why it should be applied to pre-EQE candidates for next year? They have already been given a free pass?
DeleteAlthough I think your way would also be a fair compromise.
You cant announce beforehand that half the candidates for the same paper will be treated differently - that will lead to hundreds of appeals.
DeleteI don't see many would do this especially if they are given a free pass. Many mainEQE candidates actually support this decision for pre-EQEs so they should not do this to this year's mainEQE candidates and support fairer ways to compensate for mEQE candidates (which many have already).
DeleteSo if it is the reverse, can mainEQE candidates 2020 appeal against this decision to allow preEQE candidates taking exams next year because they haven't sat the pre-EQE?
It will be a vicious cycle and we all be tearing each other apart. Some common sense would be good here.
We shouldn't assume the worse in people. Many mainEQE candidates actually support the SB decision on preEQE candidates (their colleagues). They only ask for a fair compensation to account for their loss year too.
DeleteI would hope in return, pre-EQE candidates (including myself) would support mEQE candidates this year to be fair to these guys.
I just cannot believe the double standards I am seeing from the Supervisory Board.
ReplyDeleteOn the one the hand, they pepper discretions and concessions to pre-EQE candidates. The year they had was tough on them and they deserve free passes.
On the other hand - nothing for the main EQE candidates. We cannot do anything whatsoever. Nothing at all and you will have to do everything on your own again with no leeway.
Double standards!
Why do you think so? Now only a small group with no voice is compromised, who cannot defend themselves and have no other option to do the exam next year.
DeleteThe pre-EQE canditates are happy because they don't loose a year.
The Exam Committee maintains the status quo and may continue like they've always been: drafting exams and making them year by year more difficult.
The IP Firms are likewise satisfied since on the one hand they don't have to raise salaries, and on the other hand the competition between their employees increases. They win twice.
The orginazers of the courses may continue as well by preparing the 'new' candidates. You also know that the EQE on itself has become big business... .
It is not that hopeless ...
DeletePete - I know you have been answering question and queries here which we are all grateful even though we may think differently of how best to proceed things.
ReplyDeleteWe all agree that no one should be given a straight pass of the main EQE papers. That's quite clear from all the blogs.
But do you think the statement of the decision is fair for both sets of candidates? Putting aside the remedies that is/could be available.
Treating everybody equal would have meant making everybody resit next year.
DeleteThey had the opportunity to make life a little easier for some with a solution that was objectively defendable from a quality point of view - those candidates still have to take the real exam.
No-one will agree to give candidates an easier path through the main exam just based on registration in 2020. It could be for many reasons - I think it will damage the reputation of the exam for years, so I don't agree.
In 2007 they did award (after the exam) the C-paper candidates an extra 10 points (it is a long story) to bring up the passing rate as a favor. It was a complete disaster, with many appeals being filed and shouting matches between tutors and members of the examination committees at the tutors meetings. The system is held together by a lot of goodwill, and volunteers giving their free time. The one thing that they all agree on is that the candidates who pass have earned it.
So is it fair? No. But I think they realistically did as much as they could, and I know that they will have discussed the different options.
It's true that the 2007 adjustment to Paper C (caused by a mistake of the EPO themselves overlooking an alternative IS attack and then marking down anyone who used it) was a bit of a mess. But it's also true that the present situation is a very big mess and that much good will will be burned up if there is no consideration for main EQE candidates.
DeleteDo you think things would have been better had the EPO not awarded the additional marks? At least in that circumstance there was the alternative solution of remarking the papers which they chose not to do for some reason.
Thanks Pete. I think this sums up the profession neatly. All they can think about is their reputation and themselves while we see other professions understanding the situation and helping out candidates in these times; this profession would rather uphold some hidden moral compass.
DeleteIt is so inflexible and lacks support.
It would affect many candidates for years and any goodwill will be lost with these candidates.
Everyone can see the dreadful treatment on the mEQE candidates.
Again no one is asking for a pass. If compensatory marks is to far then find other means of compensation (even financial aid) would go along way to support mEQE candidates.
They haven't done enough for mEQEs. Period
Totally agree. Today’s mEQE candidates will remember this treatment for the rest of their career. No goodwill will be expected from their side in the near future when it's up to them to help organizing the exam.
DeleteFurthermore, they will look at today’s preEQE candidates as those who got away with the whole mess.
This is really an abomination.
I will sit the exams but file appeal (this year or next year) as I don't believe pre-EQE candidates are fit to sit the mEQE exams.
Delete#Nogoodwill
I retract my statement. I have nothing against preEQE. I will appeal against the EPO decision in general about their handling of this situation and unfair treatment of mEQE
Delete#Nogoodwill
Dear Gilman Grundy, I think the intention was good, but they should have really remarked all the papers awarding points for the inventive step attack.
DeleteThey couldn't because they had to get the results out quickly to resitters as that was the transition year to EPC 2000.
So some people still failed who actually had a good paper, and some people passed who had a poor paper. And the passing rate was still quite low as well.
Since then, they have changed a lot in the organisation, and that should not happen again.
So they have some bad experiences with universally awarding extra marks and the unintended consequences.
Dear Pete, concerning candidates that should have taken the pre-exam this year: Taking in consideration that one might have to resit the main exam, does this mean that one should still (additionally to the main exam) take the pre-exam next year? Such that in the subsequent year one would be able to retake the main exam, if necessary. Since by that time the "if a pre-exam was held" condition would be fulfilled again and a pre-exam would be a mandatory condition for taking the main exam?
ReplyDeleteI could not find any regulation that said something like "if you have taken the main exam once, you can re-take it, without needing the pre-exam". Maybe you could shed some light on this. Thank you!
As there was no Pre-Exam in 2020, everybody who qualifies with the 3/4 years experience can enroll for the Main Exam 2021. Once you enroll for the Main Exam (at least one paper - pay the fee, get confirmation), you are exempted from the Pre-Exam at least for EQE 2020. That was indicated in the communication and decision, and that is clear.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens if you do not enroll for EQE 2021 Main Exam? I assume that Art. 25(4) REE will apply mutatis mutandis, and that you exempted for future Main Exams. But it does not completely apply because it refers to "first pre-examination". But you would need to check with the EQE secretariat to be sure if you are not planning to enroll.
But if one enrolled for the main exam 2021 (without having taken the pre-exam), what does this mean for future main exams (say, 2022)? Will one still be allowed to take these subsequent main exams without the pre-exam? Or should one also take the pre-exam 2021, just in case one has to retake the main exam in the following years?
DeleteYou cannot take both the pre-exam and the Main Exam in any single session - either in 2021, or in any future year.
DeleteAnyone who is admitted to the Main Exam has already passed the hurdle of the pre-exam.
It's not a difficult concept to grasp - they have completely removed the "hurdle" of the pre-exam in 2020, which means that people enrolling for Main Exam 2021 do not (and never will) need to meet the usual requirement of first passing the pre-Exam.
Enrol for at least one Main Exam paper 2021, and you need never pass the pre-exam.
But what is your source for this? The REE provides no basis for this "not so difficult to grasp concept".
DeleteOr think of it this way - if you enroll for Main Exam 2021 - even just a single paper - you are effectively considered as having passed the pre-exam 2020.
DeleteThe pre-exam was cancelled, and therefore under Article 11 REE only the other requirements (regarding registration and years of experience) apply. So anyone meeting those most basic of requirements can enrol for Main Exam 2021.
You can only travel in one direction. There is simply no mechanism - legal, practical or otherwise - for pushing a candidate who has enrolled for the Main Exam back to enrolling for/passing the pre-exam.
If you want to pass a future pre-exam, then by all means enroll for a pre-exam.
However, if you want to sidestep ever having to sit the pre-exam, then enroll for Main Exam 2021.
This is a one-time dispensation*; the requirement to hold a pass in the pre-exam will again be required for all future first-time Main Exam enrollments in years where a pre-exam is actually held.
Take advantage of this dispensation* if you can.
(*It's not even really a dispensation; it's just a direct consequence of the application of Art 11(7) REE, final sentence)
Indeed, there is no basis for that "concept". This would only work if the preEQE is cancelled for every coming year. You could even argue that today's preEQE candidates are allowed to take the mEQE next year, but still have to do the preEQE next year as well if it is held, since that's what the rule says, or at least an interpretation that can be given. They are really making out a mess of the whole situation... .
DeleteUnless you pass all 4 main EQE exams next year, you are likely to have to take the pre-EQE the year after to take EQEs again for subsequent years to come.
DeleteI forgot to answer the original question.
DeleteNo - it is not necessary to register for the Pre-Exam 2021 and the Main Exam 2021. Just at least one paper of the Main exam 2021.
Anonymous April 23, 2020 at 5:20 PM
Delete"Unless you pass all 4 main EQE exams next year ..."
That is not true - the pre-exam is a hurdle for main exam enrollment. Once you are enrolled for at least one Main Exam paper, you are past that hurdle.
If you are worried, ask the EQE secretariat for clarification.
The decision is so disappointing. I really cannot understand why it is not possible to reschedule the EQE to September. It should be possible writing the exam under special conditions (keeping distance to each other, wearing masks and using desinfection). Venues could be also provided in each member state. I think epo and epi chose a too simple way by just cancelling the EQE. They should just be a little bit more innovative. There is always a solution if you want to find one. Nobody considered the impact on the candidates by losing one year.
ReplyDeleteAt least just only let the mEQE 2020 candidates take them in September. preEQE just all got given a free pass.
Deleteor take only 1/2 papers in Sept and the rest in March 2021.
DeleteBehind the scenes, there is just enough resources and funding to make the papers, hold the exam once a year and to mark it. A lot of the hours put in by the people involved are unpaid.
DeleteIf they put all that effort into organising for September, it may still be cancelled (no-one can predict what will be happening then) and it would mean that they may not be able to organize EQE 2021 properly.
But they are taking double the candidates in 2021 + a new set of pre EQE. I think they should at least tell us why this can't just be held for mainEQE
DeleteRegarding your concern about Sept which may be cancelled. I agree. The same could also be said in March 2021. That could also be cancelled.
Answer from Pete: Yes, indeed, and there was definetely not the possibility to have these people in September to November when other challenges await them, either as practiciens or as examiners
DeleteAnswer from Anonymous: not double, since part of the 2021 candidates will be resitters from a (now not happened) failed 2020, say +50%.
possible cancellation of EQE2021: If we cannot move at least within the countries in March 2021, then our societies have more problems than a cancelled exam
What about re-sitters of the mEQE? Those who already have 200 points in total and who only needed less than 5 points at one exam to fully qualify in 2020? Why can’t anything be done for them? Is that fair to delay their qualification for 2 more years (time between publications of the results in 2019 and 2021) because they only miss less than 5 points out of 400? Would these points really make them better suited for practice?
ReplyDeleteI understand rules exist for a reason. But if these rules can suddenly be bent to apply ‘reason’, wouldn’t it be fair to apply ‘reason’ for all the candidates?
That would be defendable as there are results to extrapolate. And people resitting just one paper would be severely impacted by any disruption around that particular place, time and day.
ReplyDeleteFor example: a separate compensation within A/B/C as there is a big overlap in what is being tested, and with A/B you sometimes misunderstand the invention and fail that way.
C has a legal element (novelty, inventive step, priority, non-oral disclosures), so that could compensate a couple of marks to D. And high marks on D could be used to compensate C.
So if you got 70 marks on C, maybe you could compensate at 43 or 44 level on another paper.
But they would have to apply it to all Main Exam candidates in the system, and not just the 2020 "sitters".
The trick is coming up with a correct formula. Perhaps for those with a total score of 220 or more.
That would be absolutely ridiculous given the arguments yesterday and this morning that mEQE cannot be given any compensation at all because they to uphold some sort of standard.
ReplyDeleteBut let's pass pre EQE and resitters and everyone else who was supposed to take mEQE the first time this year can't because they somehow do not meet any criteria.
It's so hypocritical.
If resitters are allowed through, they seriously have to give marks for mEQE
It can work if they apply it to all mEQE candidates next year. Then maybe everyone would feel a bit more justice.
DeleteI was due to sit A,B,C and D for the first time in 2020. I would support this way of compensation if it also applies to us next year and not just resitters. It seems logical and it also upholds the EQE exam integrity so should satisfy the supervisory board.
DeleteResitters would be those who have already attempted each paper at least once.
ReplyDeleteIf they apply compensation for resitters then surely it is only right (and within the Supervisory board's power) to give a few discretionary marks for mEQE 2020. They will still need to get over 200 marks overall. I don't see why it should be so unfair to mEQE 2020?
ReplyDeleteIt does feel like if you have are the first time sitting the EQE 2020 exams, never failed pre-EQE but you are being triple penalised.
ReplyDeleteFirst your pre-EQE 2020 peers are allowed free passes. You had to pass that in 2019 to have the right to sit the mEQE 2020.
Then resitters are allowed to pass and go through. You don't even have that option as mEQE2020 is the first time you will sit it.
Third - you've lost a year and made to go through all the revision again (some will be doing it on their own out of lack of budget and support).
There is at least one case (D 14/17) where the Disciplinary Board considered the fact that that someone only needed 3 points to be fully qualified as EPA (A: 54, B: 59, C: 42, D: 68 - 223 total) as reason not to remit and further delay the procedure, but to award sufficient points themselves: https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/d170014du1.html
ReplyDeleteI realise it is is a different case here, but I think objectively, someone with 210 points or more could be considered for such a system.
If implemented, would this apply to everyone sitting at the mainEQE 2021?
DeleteThey would have it available if they wanted to use it - I don't know if there would be wide acceptance for it to be permanent. It could be an additional "super compensation" - so if you got above so many points, or ended in the top 20% for a particular paper in a particular year.
DeleteThe decision, marked as exceptional (well we are living in exceptional times), is based on
Deletea.) that the candidate has received for a specific portion of paper C where he could have obtained 20 points 0.
b.) that the attack he had formulated was acceptable ("vertretbarer Ansatz") (or the other way round: 0 points for it was not acceptable, => i.e. error in the marking sheet of the EB)
c.) such an aceptable attack should provide at least 3 out of 20 points
d.) remitting to the EB would bring the "correct number of points" but at least 3
=> therefore it was decided that the candidate has "failed with compensation", since these three points allowed a compensable fail in paper C and he had sufficient points in A,C,D.
=> nowhere is written one single sentence that this decision was influenced by the high number of marks >200 in total.
There was an error in the marking sheet which allowed to note that the candidate deserved (at least) three points which brought him to 45 for a compensable fail. There would (?) have been the same decision, if A=50 B=50 C=42 D=55.
I do not see the relevance for any compensation points for EQE2021.
Normally, they would send it back to the Examination Board/Committee for remarking, but in reason 3.3 it says: 3.3 Die Beschwerdekammer ist aufgrund des Vortrags des Beschwerdeführers zur Überzeugung gelangt, dass im vorliegenden Fall eine Zurückverweisung einen Formalismus bedeutet hätte, der eine allein mit der beschränkten Überprüfungskompetenz auf eindeutige Rechts- und Ermessens- bzw. Beurteilungsfehler nicht zu rechtfertigende Härte bedeutet hätte. Dem Beschwerdeführer fehlten für die Gesamtnote "nicht bestanden mit Ausgleichsmöglichkeit" für die Prüfungsaufgabe C, die zugleich für das Bestehen der europäischen Eignungsprüfung ausreichend war, lediglich drei Punkte.
Delete3.3 On the basis of the appellant's submission, the Board of Appeal came to the conclusion that in the present case a referral would have meant a formalism that would have meant a hardship that could not be justified with the limited review competence for clear legal, discretionary or judgmental errors. The complainant only lacked three points for the overall grade "failed with compensation" for exam question C, which was also sufficient for passing the European qualifying examination.
They linked it to passing they exam in the reasons for treating the case differently.
"which was also sufficient for passing the European qualifying examination".
DeleteThis may be a copy paste error, but it is very rare for the Disciplinary Board to award points. I was not involved in the case, but I have read quite a few :-)
I am not saying that this directly supports a different compensation system, but it does support using this when weighting whether special consideration was required.
And the D score of 68 points, put that person in the top 5% of all candidates that year.
I repeat:
Deletenowhere is written one single sentence that this decision was influenced by the high number of marks >200 in total
Just that the remarking would at least give him the three points and therefore, they decided.
There is no reason to award points for comp-fail candidates from last year, since they do not have a paper where these 3 points are hidden
I agree that that was not the only reason, but it appears to have played a role.
DeleteI think you can agree that this was very exceptional for an appeal to a Main Exam paper to award a number of marks instead of remitting. And they treated it quickly to avoid taking the next exam. There are many other appeals (especially for C) that do not get treated like this.
They mention a number of factors, such as only needing 3 marks to be compensable for C and the fact that having to take the next exam was considered a hardship.
But only needing 3 marks to qualify was an argument supplied by the appellant which they referred to in their reasons.
It also seems that they did not think that candidate should risk getting insufficient marks at all after remittal. They were comfortable granting them the qualification.
So, what is your explanation why they acted so exceptionally in this case?
.... and for multiple re-sitters, take their highest scores in each paper.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how many people would pass with this objective formula, but any reduction in the number of main exam candidates next year would be welcome.
So are you suggesting we now select resitters to pass through the system. Why do they need to reduce the number of main candidates if they have already committed to holding it next year.
DeleteI think this would be extremely difficult to take and unfair on those who will be sitting first time. Giving one group a leg up to pass the EQE does not sit well with me.
Anything that they do once is available for future use. One thing that is a little unfair in the current system is that if you retake a paper, then the score is overwritten. If you are resitting one paper, it is not an issue. But if you resit two, it can work against you. It would be better to simply change the rule that if you resit, you get to keep the highest score per paper. I cannot see anyone objecting to that - the level of the papers is reasonably constant.It seems strange that you are penalised for trying again compared to just doing nothing.
DeleteYes that is strange. This should be changed anyway independent of the coronavirus situation.
DeleteThat would be unfair and unacceptable if they just apply it to resitters and not to mEQE2020 candidates.
ReplyDeleteAs you said above, no one would allow mEQE2020 candidates discretionary marks apparently based on the fact that they enrolled for EQE2020. It is not their fault that they haven't had the chance to sit the papers.
So how is allowing resitters to pass fair on mEQE2020 candidates sitting it for the first time. They will be severely punished and held back based on the fact that they enrolled for mEQE2020 while preEQE get a free pass and resitters get to move on.
If they are helping resitters which I understand, they have to help mEQE2020 candidates.
ReplyDeleteAgreed
Delete@ Pete 12:52 AM
ReplyDeleteThis scheme could work and have my support but it would be fair to apply this to those sitting mainEQEs 2021 and not just resitters. The reason why I suggest that it applies to all in 2021 is that resitters may not have to sit the exams in 2021 reducing the numbers taking it next year but also mEQE2021 candidates will still have to sit the exam so applying this same criteria on them would be fair to them. Plus, it may reduce the numbers in 2022 to a more manageable level.
Whatever they do this year, they could use next year. Getting to keep your highest score could be changed permanently.
DeleteI am not sure about whether the "super compensation" would be accepted permanently, but anyone who ends up in the top 20-30% for a paper, particularly C and D, were not just lucky. My experience is that they were the best-prepared candidates.
According to https://statisteqe.beetz.nl/four.php, there are still 1157 people "struggling" - I don't know if these are all resitters, but the number sounds about right. The burden on the organisation for one person is almost as much as for someone sitting all papers. If they could "promote out" people, they would have additional capacity to absorb the first-time sitters.
Deleteyes agree about reducing numbers, but as you said - it will need to apply to all EQE2021 otherwise you have a situation where mEQE2020 candidates are double penalised because it is their first sitting.
Deletepenalised in the sense that resitters are allowed through and pre-EQE are allowed to go up while they are stuck in the middle.
DeleteAh. I see my name :)
DeleteThe 1157 'struggling' people include people who gave up, people who passed after appeals and people who passed with the help of pre-2010 results. In reality, there will be fewer re-sitters.
I should be able to count how many people would benefit from your 'supercompensation' proposal, but to be fair, I don't see any chance of the SB accepting such a proposal.
That is a calculation that they can easily do within the Secretariat.
DeleteThe effort to support such a scheme would only make sense if it significantly reduced the number of candidates next year.
With EQE2020 cancelled, the remaining and only goal (benefitting all involved: Examiner Board, candidates, markers) is to limit or lessen the stress for all involved for EQE2021.
ReplyDeleteLetting the pre-exam candidates move to be able to apply for EQE2021 doubles the number of candidates and puts stress on the markers and financial stress on the EPO and EPI.
Reducing the number of candidates is the only way to reduced the stress on the system.
A new test system will not be available until 2021. In addition, 2021 might also already be at stake due to a new wave of corona virus infections, unavailability of venues, increased costs of venue rental costs etc. So the only risk management the EPO/EPI can do now is to somehow reduce the number of candidates.
My proposal for reducing the number of candidates and for making this whole situation more “fair”.
Criteria for passing the EQE are slightly amended:
Candidates still will need to achieve 200 points in total and at least 45 points in each exam. BTW: the 45 point hurdle apparently has already been weakened by D14/17 if I understand Pete’s post above correctly (btw: why 42 points in D is more fit for practice than say 40 points or between 35 and 40 points still escapes my imagination, thus one candidate which struggled with time and missed answering 1-2 questions is not deemed fit for practice but the candidate which was able to tackle these two questions is. I understand some sort of limit or range needs to be set, but it really does not make sense).
As said, the goal is: reduce the number of candidates for 2021 to help all involved while keeping the fit-for-practice standard.
My proposal:
200 points hurdled remains as per the regulations.
Same for the 45 points hurdle for paper D, but this can be compensated by any points acquired in the pre-exam above 70 points (one could also extend this to papers A,B and C of course, but a either a choice needs to made for which exam the compensation will be used, compensation of course can used only once).
Thus finally all exam results including the pre-exam are directly included in the fit-for-practice-test principle of the EQE.
1st sitters without pre-exam taken in 2020 thus will benefit for being still able to tackle EQE 2021 main as decided by the Examination Board, i.e. without taking the fit-for-practice 1st hurdle pre-exam.
They of course will not benefit from any compensation from the pre-exam results. They could of course opt to take the pre-exam first and postpone the main exam.
1st main sitters with passed pre-exam will benefit from an already earned compensation from the pre-exam results if above 70.
All re-sitters who sat the pre-exam will benefit from results of pre-exam. In case a re-sitter has taken one exam twice with results below 45 points, either the highest ranking result shall be taken into consideration or a mean of the results.
For re-sitters from way before the start of the pre-exam system (I do not know how many these are), they could re-sit the pre-exam or the main exam (taking off the load for marking).
Sounds good but a bit complicated.
DeleteWouldn't it be easier to apply 2-3 or 5 marks for those who've passed pre-EQE?
Agree on the resitter proposal.
Of course you could take any number of compensatory points and apply it, but simply sticking to the points above 70 is imho most fair, since it reflects the perfomance of the candidate.
Delete@Pete: yes reformatio in peius should apply.
The 45 points was not weakened. But they considered the fact that having only 3 points needed to pass and be qualified was reason enough for them to decide that the normal procedure of remarking would take too long, and that they felt confident enough that the C paper was easily a passing grade.
DeleteApplying it mutatis mutandis you could say that a resitter who is close to passing is unduly penalised by having to wait another year to be qualified when they are so close.
I think this situation has exposed how weak the system is and the hurdles to get EQE attorney. There is too much of an over reliance on examination based assessments only.
DeleteI believe there should be a mixture/other means of assessments along with exams so that we don't rely entirely on one form of assessment as a checkpoint.
for clarification:
ReplyDeleteif a candidate has more than 200 points in all exams but one exam is below the 45 points hurdle, he can compensate with the number of marks achieved in the pre-exam above 70 for this one exam to get above the 45 point hurdle, thus passing the EQE
Yes, you could also use any high points as well from the Pre-Exam. Even 2-3 points can make a difference to passing. You could even have extra points from the legal questions compensate for D, and Claims Analysis for A or B.
ReplyDeleteI don't see any reason why when you retake an exam, your position should worsen compared to not taking the exam. Using a mean still means that you could get lower and lower results each year. It is the principle of Reformatio-in-peius (G2/92) :-)
Regarding 43 & 44 points, there already is a special procedure where they examine your paper in detail to see whether it is "fit-to-practice" level. So these are already considered borderline cases where they look through the answer for additional clues to competence. Under the current rules, they are not allowed to consider performance on other papers (it is done anonymously), but you could imagine a more structured and global approach applied by the Board.
The slight issue with preEQE marks is that the mark weighting is very weirdly done. If you get 2 answers correct, you get 1 mark. So they may need to look at that.
DeleteI think the supervisory board do need to rethink because it is clear that the decision yesterday is not quite satisfactory (apart from the decision on the pre-EQE candidates).
ReplyDeleteFinding double number of markers with double number of candidates and multiple venues across Europe, organising this along with restrictions to travelling from candidates whilst it is still so uncertain when things will go back to normal (I predict the social distancing measures and a ban on social gathering/events will last all through to next year).
Assuming the right people were consulted, the EPO would not have agreed unless they had a plan within the organisation to cope with the extra numbers.
DeleteHopefully, something will be announced when registration opens on 4 May.
Perhaps they should have also consulted you Pete as there are some very good ideas I'm seeing here on this blog.
DeleteThanks! I know that there are a lot of people who read the different blogs.
DeleteThere are also a lot of smart people within the EQE organisation who are continuously looking to improve things. The discussions on these blogs can provide additional input or extra support for their ideas.
And I would be very happy to provide direct input if anyone wants it - use the contact form at fireballpatents.com
DeleteThe only thing that is improved is the difficulty of the exams over the years. I don't think it is very smart not having a back-up plan. These are indeed exceptional circumstances, but what if, in normal times, one of the test centre would becoming unreachable? Even for such situation, you must think ahead and have a back-up.
DeleteIt is clear nobody ever thought of this situation and that all the resources went to the everlasting discussions between the exam comittee and the tutors, making a sport out of it to be one step ahead with respect to each other.
Unfortunately, it is also clear from the decision yesterday that they are clearly not ready for alternative assessments by 2021.
ReplyDeleteThe current format is clearly the elephant in the room.
ReplyDeleteInstead of looking at another way of assessing the candidates, one is discussing of either digitalizing it, or adapting the way the marks are distributed.
A digitalization of the current form doesn’t solve any problem, on the contrary, it will introduce more problems, like providing proper venues with the right material.
Adapting the way marks are distributed will introduce likewise other problems and more discussions. Furthermore, they will adapt the way marks are given.
The way the assessment now is organized is totally outdated. Why not providing test centers distributed all over Europe, where one can apply to make the test during more than one time a year?
Will this lower the bar to be admitted to the profession? Probably. Will this lead to an increase of the number of attorneys? Most likely. Is this a problem? I don’t see any, you still must have a university degree and your three years of training.
Honestly, when I sometimes receive an opinion of an examiner, it is clear that he doesn’t know how the problem-solution approach works, or even worse, doesn’t understand novelty. At the side of the attorneys, they love to increase the difficulty to enter the profession, while at the side of the examiners, the only criterium is to have a PhD in a particular field.
I would hope that everything is on the table - digitization would only be the first step they could take.
DeleteI don't agree that it will necessarily lower the level.
I don't think standards will slip. But I do think its clear that any alternative assessments cannot be implemented by 2021.
DeleteTigellinus, the weeping vase!
DeleteI would hope that they are still in discussions about further options such as compensatory marks for mEQE 2020 or taking into account previous preEQE, EQE exams for resitters and mEQE2020 candidates or any other means.
ReplyDeleteI hoped that the announcement yesterday was just to confirm that EQE2020 is not going ahead but that they are still thinking of new ways/internal discussions. That is my hope.
I think it was important to at least let preEQE and EQE candidates know that the exams have been cancelled. Fair enough.
ReplyDeleteBut discussions and solutions should still be discussed between the boards.
I know its difficult but I feel there still needs to be some sort of discretion/compensation for mEQE2020.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your earlier comments in the blog
ReplyDeleteabout applying compensatory marks to all Main Exam candidates in 2021, not just the 2020 "sitters".- I disagree. Pre-eqe candidates have already had their compensation- they have been permitted to pass an examination without having to sit it. Whilst main candidates have been given absolutely no compensation or consideration at all. I understand this is an unprecedented situation, however there needs to be some justice and fairness for mEQE2020 candidates who have given up so much of their time to prepare for this.
Thanks Pete for the blog and the resources you supply.
ReplyDeleteAs a EQE2020 sitter, I feel that the decision is unfair.
As a lot of my 2020 EQE colleagues, I have already exhausted all the recent papers in the compendium to the contrary of the new EQE 2021 sitters, that will face these papers for the first time. Their preparation will be then better. They will certainly have better training that us, as many of us will not be able to do again courses. Moreover, fear of resitting will be higher for the 2020 candidates, as they all have missed a year, and at this time will have done the compendium 2 times!
It is also very hard to keep the motivation on the high level for 2 years in a row...The new EQE 2021 candidates will be completly fresh and not mentally tired.
In my opinion, the success rate of the former EQE 2020 candidates will be lower than the new EQE 2021 candidates. The EQE 2020 candidates can be indeed seen as resitters, and it is proven that resitters have lower marks that first sitters. It is something that tutor explained during courses.
Whatever, the former EQE 2020 candidate that will succeed EQE2021 will certainly deserve it !
Apart from that, do you have any tips/plan that former EQE2020 candidates can do to remain sharp and not loose the huge preparation works that has been done?
Thanks in advance.
I understand the problem, but I don't agree that the PE 2020 candidates have a real advantage due to the availability of papers.
DeleteIn normal circumstances, may have a slight advantage because they are on a standard training plan, with fresh materials, but I think that for next year, there will be a real problem with motivation for all as it is not certain that it will go ahead. But they will probably be carried along by their training plan, as you said.
I agree that the ME 2020 candidates will have a lower motivation, but they do have the knowledge that they were prepared. So they can be prepared again.
Assuming you were ready for all papers, it does not make any sense to keep studying on your own - you will not be able to motivate yourself for 9 months. I would not look at any papers or study materials until at least the end of the year. Depending on the evening and weekend hours you have available, you could start an intense preparation from 1 Jan 2021.
It makes more sense to use the materials in different ways
- prepare an overview for your office/department on the EPC & PCT changes in 2019/2020. You can also submit this to the epi journal, for example.
- prepare an overview of how to do one or more papers - the things that you have learned about what the exam committee wants to see. If it is short, you can also publish in the epi journal, or on-line. Or use it within your office/department.
- work on exercises and papers with others who are learning everything for the first time. The best way to learn is actually to teach. The questions posed by those learning will test whether you really understand it
- make sure your internal EPC/PCT procedures are up to date, especially anything related to all due care. Check whether the latest instructions are being followed.
For example, I was talking to a firm that always files PCT applications for a client at the EPO - but filing at the IB using e-PCT is a much better system than the EPO offers. It was probably decided years ago, but things have changed substantially.
The following text was added to the EPO COVID-19 page:
ReplyDeletewww.epo.org/news-issues/covid-19.html
EQE 2020 - CANCELLED
The Supervisory Board has decided to cancel the EQE 2020 in its entirety without replacement (pre-examination and main examination papers).
Since the cancellation of the examination dates of 16-19 March 2020 the EPO has made every effort to find a suitable alternative to these dates. However, it remains uncertain as to whether the strict anti-COVID-19 measures taken by the governments of most countries to protect the health and safety of the public in general will be lifted in time for an EQE 2020 to be held later this year.
We know how important the EQE is to the patent world and how much effort and time candidates invest in preparing for the examination, but in view of the current situation and the lack of certainty with regard to the future, we trust that everyone will understand the reasons for this decision.
In these exceptional circumstances, the EPO and epi have made a thorough search for alternatives to ease this inconvenient situation for candidates of 2020 EQE as far as possible. Ease of access to EQE 2021 will be created for these candidates as follows: all candidates who had enrolled for the 2020 pre-examination paper will be allowed to enrol for the 2021 main examination without having passed a pre-examination. This will also be possible for registered candidates who have completed the required professional activities/training period. Candidates who had enrolled for 2020 main examination papers will be considered to be enrolled for those papers in 2021.
For future examinations, with a view to saving resources and rendering procedures more efficient – also for the benefit of candidates - the EPO, together with the epi, will explore all possibilities to arrive at a paperless process and procedures. This will be advantageous not just for the EQE but for all procedures.
I am not exactly sure for whom amongst candidates paperless procedures are a benefit.
DeleteFor me it's a bit of mixed bag. The possibility of misunderstood hand-writing, and the awful hand-cramp I had developed at the end of the three days of the exam period last year, dictate that it would be advantageous to type. Also, if a standard word-processing package is used then things like search/replace, and possibly even spell-check and grammar-check would be there. The only exam I have left to sit is Paper A, and of course I draft applications on computer so this would be familiar.
Against this, there is:
1) The tendency of the examiners to over-compensate whenever any change is introduced. More time, for example, in the end just meant more materials were put into the exam.
2) For candidates who prepared to sit the exam in written form this will be unfamiliar.
3) For those who do not have laptops, this will make preparation a bit more difficult - with children at home I always prepare outside the house (typically at my local library), and at work it is hard to find time to prepare. I do have a laptop but not all trainees get one.
3) Unlike the UK exams, I don't think the EQEs ever expect candidates to provide a sketch to support their arguments, but this option is basically removed by switching to computer-only.
On balance computer-administered exams are probably a plus for me, but that's almost entirely down to the way my right hand felt like a stone at the end of 18 hours of continuous hand-writing over three days!
For the current digital pilot, they got a lot of negative comments from candidates who were afraid of something different. I think the only real danger is technical (accidentally overwriting something or saving an old version)
DeleteWho would benefit from paperless?
DeleteEveryone.
With the current system, you write by hand, number all the sheets, put all your sheets in a particular order, put them into a bag for collection (pages are often misplaced by candidates), the answer papers are collected, shipped to Munich, digitized, checked for readability (if too difficult to read, candidate can be asked to type it in), anonomized (some candidates put their name or number on each page - these have to be removed manually), before being distributed for marking. The cut-paste that some candidates use, particularly for A & B, can make scanning difficult. Pieces can disappear, pages will be discarded if they do not have a bar code (EQE paper or sheet from exam paper). Anything on the back is not scanned. The version ready for marking is sent to you digitally - you should check that the number of pages is correct, and nothing is obviously missing. The person marking them is not always a native speaker, so they can sometimes struggle over handwritten words.
New process: search digitally through the paper (very useful on A, C, DII), copy claim language straight into your answer (useful for A/B), easily move things around if you wish, no need to number answer pages, search in your own answer. There are also dangers: spending too much time on organising (content is important, not the appearance), copying large sections of the paper into your answer (this does not score marks).
You will be certain that the person marking sees exactly what you hand in.
Your answer can be checked very quickly, forwarded to markers (possibly with one or more translations to assist the markers) very quickly. Speeding up marking means that the results are available earlier. It may even be possible to automate the marking of some papers.
For practice, the exams are already available digitally. And you can buy a 2nd-hand 14-inch business laptop to practice for EUR160 or less.
Sorry, links for CB training were old. There is a dedicated webpage: Computer-based EQE
Delete.... and they can already offer this in different countries in 2021 "according to the current format".
DeleteTo be honest morale and motivation for myself (an EQE candidate of 2020) is very low and my focus is not there. I hope I pick myself up for next year again but it has been very tough.
ReplyDeleteMe too. I had only one more exam to sit, in December last year I started my preparation for this year and was not greatly enthused about the whole thing - my attitude was "let's just get this over with". Then came the thunderbolt of cancellation when I was just about feeling ready. Now I'm looking at being back at Square One (again) in December this year.
DeleteIt must be very tough Gilman especially with just one more to go. I feel for the candidates doing all 4 exams too. The preparation must have been immense only to have the carpet pulled out of all your feet.
DeleteIts no one's fault but I can truly understand the lack of motivation/focus. I would be in the same state of mind too.
I know we have discussed that EQE2021 may not take place. Candidates need to know in my view by September 2020 whether EQE2021 is certain to go ahead. They can't let waste many more months of candidates time if they are not sure it can go ahead in their words "in the current format".
ReplyDeleteOff course, they should explore alternative assessments but its clear from the statement that they are not ready to implement this by 2021.
Will they let candidates know by September 2020?
I feel September is a reasonable time to let candidates know if things are still that uncertain. It will at least stop the candidates needlessly revising for months if the EPO really cannot be sure it can go ahead in March.
ReplyDeletePushing the exam back to another date doesn't seem good as many can miss out and there will be other clashes too.
The reason that the EQE has not developed, and is not capable of preparing a back-up plan, is the lack of funding. Although there is legal basis in the EPC, there is no mention of who should pay for it. Originally, there were less than 100 candidates, but it has grown considerably since it started.
ReplyDeleteFor many years, the costs were shouldered almost completely by the EPO, including providing almost all of the organization and most of the committee members. I think the markers were a good mix of epi & EPO. The exam fees do not cover the costs at all.
A few years ago, the EPO pulled a lot of the examiners from the EQE system because they were under pressure to reduce the backlog of patent applications to be examined. Since then, the EPO involvement has reduced.
Behind the scenes, the EQE is just able every year to be held, but it relies on a lot of goodwill and unpaid hours. It is amazing that they can actually do what they do with resources they have.
Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked - Warren Buffett
Would people (candidates and invigilators) actually feel comfortable in a mass gathering event without being tested. I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteI think there will be a lot of candidates withdrawing anyway or not registering because of the uncertainty.
DeleteBut I wold advise anyone who can now register in 2021 for the Main Exam for the first time to register for at least one ME paper. This ensures that they avoid having to do the Pre-Exam in the future (we do not know how the rules will change).
We know that candidates will risk to take the exams as its so important in their careers even if there is a public health issue.
DeleteThe issue here is that as we see some countries coronavirus cases and deaths fall, other parts of the world are seeing a rise. Its a vicious cycle.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts are that for the health and safety of candidates and the public, it would be hard to see EQE exams take place in March 2021 unless alternative assessments can take place instead.
If they can provide options that comply with the expected conditions (less than 50 per location, 1.5m separation, protective equipment for invigilators, exam on PC etc), then it will be up to candidates whether they want to take a calculated risk themselves.
DeleteI think Kylo is correct - many will be prepared to take some risk, but this is something everyone can judge for themselves.
There is still a chance that they cancel - hopefully they will also publish the conditions under which they would cancel again.
And if you are do not want to deal with the uncertainty, or you are not comfortable with the risk (whatever the reasons), you can always withdraw and wait for 2022.
The issue is that candidates will be vehicles of the virus and help spread it further, so even if these measures are in place it is not enough/sufficient hence, why everyone has been in lockdown. This is one of the reasons why they had to cancel March 2020.
DeleteAs Kylo says, candidates will take unnecessary risks to sit the exams travelling from all over the world so the decision must come from the EPO. I don't think the burden should be left up to candidates when it comes to public health and safety.
If everyone is complying with the local and national guidance/rules, then it is up to individual candidates the level of risk that they wish to take. At that point, many other people will be travelling, so any spread due to the EQE will be minimal.
ReplyDeleteIt is not the responsibility of the EPO to insist on zero risk as that is impossible to achieve. It would also be unfair to candidates willing to travel if a small group are not willing to travel. I am not suggesting that anyone break any laws, but it is likely that the COVID risk will be manageable next year, and can be balanced against other risks. Any candidates uncomfortable with a mimimal risk can choose to not attend.
I'm not sure how it can be done safely in a large gathering at one of the big centres such as in Munich or in the UK. It is highly unlikely large gatherings are allowed way through to middle of next year.
DeleteMultiple venues will be needed but again, it is highly likely that travels will be restricted.
I'm not sure anyone is certain that COVID-19 risks will be manageable by next year.
DeleteWe are guided by government policies but nothing will get back to normal until a vaccine is found.
Big mistake to allow free passes this year into the main exam 2021! They should have simply cancelled everything in 2020. That would have been fair. Since they got my pre-exam fee which I did not need to pay, the least they can do is create an online EQE course for the main exam and offer it for free!
ReplyDeleteThey should have never allowed a free pass for pre-Eqe and done nothing for main EQE candidates. This creates so many more issues like capacity for training courses, hotels and spaces at venues. It is also extremely unfair!
ReplyDeleteDear Pete, how would an EQE be organized, now that e.g. Dutch government has decided that events of such size would be realizable only if there is an vaccine. With other words, how is EPO going to safeguard that the participants are vaccinated?
ReplyDeleteI am surprised that they have opened registration without telling us what they will do differently - if they are going to try and do it exactly the same as this year, then the chance it will be cancelled is probably very high. And it does not really motivate people to prepare.
ReplyDeleteThere are certainly a lot of steps they can take to reduce the risks - it will never be zero, but it would give more confidence that things are under control.
I think the Dutch government is referring to public events, like concerts etc, so that would not apply to an exam.
I'm not so sure. I think large gatherings in general are banned. Having a private conference with hundreds of people is almost the same as gatherings for a football match. They will have to ban all gatherings otherwise it will be super confusing for the public.
DeleteThe EQE is only really a gathering at the beginning and the end. But you have a point - attendees is an easy rule to make and enforce, and the more people you have in one location, the more risk you will run of cancellation.
DeleteThe obvious thing to do to reduce risk is to:
- have a lot more local testing centres - they know the concentrations of candidates from previous years
- delay the exam to May
- seriously roll-out the computer-based exam that was already being piloted. You will not be able to do it at home, but there are a lot of computer-based training centers.
Yes this is true but it is easier for authorities to apply a blanket ban based on numbers.
DeleteIs my understanding correct that every exam requires someone from the EPO to attend I. E. From Munich. Travelling may be a big issue.
Moving to exam in May might be an option but this would cause new/other issues for candidates. We also don't know if everything would be fine by May.
I think computer based or alternative assessments is a viable option to take.
Yes, it is far easier for authorities to put a blanket ban based on numbers at gatherings.
DeleteAm I correct to say that a representative person from the EPO must be present in these exams. Smaller exam venues would be good but travelling to them for candidates and EPO representatives will be difficult due to travel restrictions.
Moving it to May is a good option but this would create a whole host of new/other issues for candidates.
The real alternative I see is alternative assessments but will this be ready for next year?
It is not that difficult to at least identify the biggest risks and address them in some way.
DeleteDo you know why someone from Munich must be in attendance?
No idea but there are always 2 EPO representatives in my exams last year.
DeleteIf that is a current requirement, that is easy to change. You can have someone from the national patent attorney association run it.
DeleteAnd travelling to other parts of Europe will be severely restricted. People who have been travelling are forced to isolate for 14 days when they enter.
ReplyDeleteOff course. So much uncertainty is making it really difficult for candidates to prepare appropriately.
ReplyDeleteA word of caution, I think it would be difficult to do some EQE papers online. For example, for Paper C you need to constantly flick back and forth between documents and read prior art docs many times. Having it all on the computer makes it extremely difficult to do this.
ReplyDeleteIn the current pilot, you get the exam on paper and electronically.
DeleteBut as they move forward to a fully electronic exam, they will have to redesign the exam. It would make more sense to split it up into several smaller cases.
Do you know if EPO are actively looking into expanding the pilot for this year Pete?
ReplyDeleteI meant for next year and for all candidates whether they signed up for it or not.
DeleteOne thing that is also not clear is whether you can sign up for the pilot scheme this year when you were not on it for last year.