EQE Equality = Missione Impossibile?

 

“Your mission, Etna, if you accept it, is to pass parts ABC of the European Qualifying Exam within two attempts. Your dreams of success will collide with mind-bending riddles, highly specialized technology and deadly traps, raising the bar beyond reason, year after year. In an entirely foreign language, you must gather the scattered pieces of a <Possible Solution>, which hold the key to your future career. The time given is a fraction of what you would have in real-life. This WISEflow message will crash your computer in five seconds.”

blog.ipappify.de/eqe-equality-missione-impossibile/

Russell IP EQE Webinars 2021 now available

This was a great initiative - Russell IP hosted almost 10 hours of free tutoring last week, primarily for candidates affected by the cancellation of  EQE 2020. From across Europe and further afield, almost 400 candidates attended the five webinars.

Recordings of the webinars, copies of the presentations, and several templates are now available on the Russell IP website (with kind permission from the tutors).

I add my thanks to everyone involved - it is not easy to find time to do this. But a little support makes a big difference to candidates in this challenging year!

Jointly initiated and coordinated by Iain Russell (Russell IP) & Guy Warner (Unilever). Tutors: Pre-Exam – Jonathan Hewett & Kathryn Rose (Venner Shipley LLP); A & B - Guy Warner (Unilever) & Iain Russell (Russell IP); C – Paul Beynon (Appleyard Lees IP LLP); D – Kirsty Simpson (Venner Shipley LLP) & Gemma Wooden (EIP).

Combined AB papers & suggested papers for practice

I have been asked by a couple of people to go through the list again, so see below for the update of this post from Dec 2018. It has not changed much (removed A EM 2011), but I have added some general guidance, as well as a list of not-recommended papers.

With so few combined technology papers, you need to do some of the older papers to practice, including papers in the technology that you are least comfortable with. 

In general: 

• Look for papers that are "C-like" - requiring a more general technical knowledge
• Past papers relied on candidates knowing certain basic facts in that technology. Physics / chemistry / biology that you knew in school but have forgotten - e.g. chlorine is a halogen, thermoplastics can be softened by heat, moment = force x distance, chemical compounds can have several names. In the current papers, all those facts are provided, either by the client or in the prior art. For past papers, you may have to look these things up to determine genus/species relationships, differences (important for novelty), effects (important for inventive step). 
• EM papers: can derive effect (function) from structure and vice-versa. A feature is usually used to distinguish from prior art - comparing drawings is fastest way to see this. Functional claims are often expected, often close to a "result to be achieved". Enablement issues are very rare. Skilled person can use some extrapolation => similar structures provide similar effects, similar effects imply similar structures. The result of a process can usually be predicted, so claiming of product-by-process is very rare. Skilled person can often fill in a lot of gaps - for example, claims are much broader than specific examples in description.
• CH papers: effects are supported by experimental data. Ranges and range values are used as distinguishing features, but just a different value may not be enough (a diiferent effect associated with this value is evidence of novelty). Effect (function) is not derivable from structure. Structure is not derivable from effect (function). Skilled person cannot use extrapolation based on structure. Some very narrow extrapolation based on effects, but teachings are followed very exactly. Enablement is often an issue. The result of a process cannot be predicted, so claiming of product-by-process is frequent where the product cannot be claimed structurally. Skilled person cannot fill in gaps - claims find exact support in description. It was expected to turn the whole letter from the client (in A) into a part of the description (no longer required). Unity was often an issue (has not been tested in combined papers, but a simple case could be covered). Markush claims were expected (not to be expected in the combined papers)
• Avoid past EM papers that are based around finding a claim that covers a lot of embodiments. Claim language was not given - you were expected to provide intermediate generalisations yourself - e.g. screw, nail, glue => generalise to "fixing means".

EQE 2019 - Paper B

I sat the paper under exam conditions in Munich as a bench marker to give the examination committees some materials for their marking discussion. If you want to try the paper yourself, here are the compendium copies in English, French & German.

Again a mix of mechanical, physical and chemical aspects. Very simple technology - solar cookers. In structure, this felt to me like a chemical paper - I managed to sort the pieces out, but I was not sure exactly what direction to take. Normally, in an EQE paper, most of the issues are clear enough decide using an 80/20 weighting, but here I had several 50:50 issues. Also with the support for the main amendment I took. I also struggled with inventive step. The reactions from others was a little mixed - they were unsure about their answer.

I may not be the best person to judge - I always have problems with paper B😲. I only passed it on my 2nd attempt at the EQE, and for a similar paper as a Dutch patent attorney, I had to take it 3 times.

See below for more comments and possibly some spoilers

I will be a "guinea-pig" again for the epi in Munich (EQE 2019)

I am happy to have been picked again to "guinea-pig" the EQE papers on behalf of the epi. I will be doing all the papers again - A, B, C and D. Although we are called "bench markers", we do not calibrate the exam or set a base level. The Examination Committees and markers rely on our papers for initial discussions about aspects that should get (or not get) marks and the weighting for the aspects. This helps fine-tune their internal instructions before they start the actual marking. They have about 6 people making each paper at different locations and with different backgrounds under exam conditions - these volunteers have already passed the EQE, and ideally they want us to score around 50 points.

To anyone who has passed the EQE (or passes it next year), please consider volunteering next year when the epi sends the email in October. It is very much appreciated by the Examination Board and Committees. You are not paid for the hours, but travelling expenses are refunded by the EPO via the epi. It is also possible to sign up for one paper only, but the chance of being picked is higher if you sign up for more than one. For EQE tutors, it is invaluable to sit papers you see for the first time like this.

Suggested papers for AB practice

As there are not many combined technology papers, it is recommended to do some of the older papers to practice. In particular, it is good to practice exra old papers in the least familiar technology. The selected papers below tend to be more "C-like", avoiding chemical formula in the claims and also avoiding the very mechanical inventions. The papers and Examiners' Reports are found in the Compendium.

Combined papers

A - 4 hrs given to make a 3½ hr paper
B - 3½ hrs given to make a 3 hr paper

• A 2018, A 2017, A Mock
• B 2018, B 2017, B Mock

After introduction of Pre-Exam
A - 3½ hrs to make a 3½ hr paper
B - 3 hrs to make a 3 hr paper

• A CH 2015 
• A EM 2014, 2013
• B CH 2015
• B EM 2016, 2015, 2013

Before introduction of Pre-Exam
A - 3½ hrs to make a 3½ hr paper
B - 4 hrs to make a 4 hr paper

• A CH 2010, 2009, 2008, 2006, 2004 
• A EM 2000
• B CH 2012, 2010, 2009, 2003
• B EM 2012, 2010, 2007

Updated - see post from May 2020

Congratulations to those who passed EQE 2018

The results for the EQE Main Exam 2018 are here. Congratulations if you passed at least something - none of the papers are easy, especially when you take into account the stress. There were many comments in the Candidate's survey this year that the extra 30 minutes seems to have been cancelled out by the increased length, particularly for C and D. C and D tend to require a lot of writing, so if more time is needed to read the papers, there is less time is available to score points.

The missing scores in the graphs below at 43, 44, 49, 50 are due to the extra check that is done - if you are just failing, everything you handed-in is screened to see if you are to be considered "fit-to-practice". If so, extra points may be awarded

Paper D

Well-done to those who passed D. The final passing rate is about 7% less than last year. The DI was a lot to get through. DII was a different style compared to recent years, but it was also shorter than in 2017. My advice for D is to skip one of the DI questions (the one you know will take a long time to look up and answer). Do the DII as fully as possible and the rest of the DI questions.

Paper C

C was 7 pages longer than in 2017 - I felt like it took forever to read everything. The passing rate is slightly (3%) lower than last year, so it does not seem to have been a problem. Unfortunately, with C, you have to go through every thing - even documents that are not to suitable for the major part of an attack may contain definitions or something else useful. On C, when you have enough for an attack, write it down - don't wait for the complete picture before starting.

Paper B

This was the second year with the universal technologies. The relatively high passing rate from 2017 (80%) has been maintained. It seems that more Candidates scored 60 - 80 points compared to 2017. The advantage of the B paper (compared to A) is that you are given the starting point (the claims and part of the description as filed), and you are pointed towards the solution by the objections of the examiner and the letter from the client.


Paper A

The A paper also has the same passing rate as last year (62%). To optimally prepare for A, you need to be familiar with both chemistry and electromechanical claiming practice, as well as know how to draft a method and product/apparatus claim.

See here for an easy-to-use site dedicated to the EQE statistics made by Joeri Beetz, allowing you to do your own analysis.

Looking forward to tutoring Papers A & B in Maastricht for EQE 2019

I am proud to be joining the team in Maastricht to help with their EQE Paper A B C D  and Pre-Exam Training Courses.

The team are: Cees Mulder, Nyske Blokhuis, Natasja Duhayon and Isabelle Surdej.

I am part of the AB team - together with Natasja and Isabelle, we are preparing an exam methodology and step-by-step training program to deal with the challenges of the current papers. The benchmarking I did in February under EQE conditions was ideal to draft and test a step-by-step approach, and to think about how to deal with the chemical and electro-mechanical styles & practices. I may also be helping with the C course and the Pre-Exam Claims Analysis.
The AB training consists of 3-days in Maastricht (19-21 November 2018), followed by online assignments and contact with the tutors through the university's electronic learning environment. The groups are not large, so if you are interested, make sure you sign up quickly using the form here. Maastricht is also a wonderful place to visit for a couple of days with historic buildings, friendly people, good food/beer and a lively nightlife :-)

EQE 2018 Papers A & B

Today I did papers A and B. This is the second year that the technlogies are combined, so as expected a combination of electromechanical and chemistry skills were required. If you want to look, here are the official copies of the A and the B papers.

I think these papers were nicely balanced and they have clearly added extra guidance in each paper for those from the other field.

- A was about using lasers to create protrusions in glass. So this mainly mechanical (physics), with some slight chemistry style (instructions about what is essential). It was good paper, although I heard different views afterwards about the claim categories that should be used. It was 5 pages shorter than last year.

- B was a chemical paper, with a lot of electrical elements. I really liked this paper, even though it was longer than usual (a lot of information in the application and a lot in the prior art - it was 5 pages longer than in 2017).
I thought it was a good mix, and shows the advantages of mixing the technical fields. I have had cases like this in real-life with electrical and chemical elements, and you need to understand how to claim in both areas and to be able to judge novelty and inventive step.
They also provided an extra set of clean claims this year from the client so you could choose to work from the claims as filed or the claims as proposed by the client. Everybody I talked to had a different answer for claim 1, so it should be interesting to see what was actually expected.

In a few weeks you will get a copy of your answers. If you cut up the exam paper (with your childsafe scissors ,-),  and glued or taped it into your answer, check carefully to see if any piece is missing. Or whether there are pages missing. It can happen that pages get stuck together, and then are missed during scanning. Or pieces fall off. If you notice anything, notify the EQE secretariat.

I will be an epi benchmarker in Munich for EQE 2018

Every year, the Examination Committees rely on papers from "benchmarkers" to help fine-tune the marking. These papers are made by people who have already passed the EQE, and ideally they are looking for people who can get around 50 points.
The benchmarkers take the exam at the same time as everybody else under the same exam conditions. Their answers are then be used in the group discussions about what should be awarded points, and what is insufficient.
I am happy to support this on behalf of the epi. To anyone who has passed the EQE (or passes it this year), please volunteer next year when the epi sends the email in October. It is very much appreciated by the Examination Board and Committees. 

Last year I only did the D paper - this year I will do all 4 papers (D, A, B, C) in Munich. I just bought my safety scissors in case I need to cut up the papers.


Good luck!

The official answers to the EQE 2017 papers are now available

The Examination Committe's have published their Examiners' reports containing a good "possible solution", some alternatives and comments on how the papers was actually answered by candidates.
A: Report, B: Report, C: Report, D: Report
If you unfortunately didn't pass, you should be able to get some idea what you missed using your marking sheet (which is sent by post) and these Examiner' Reports.
Note that these are not model solutions and there may be other comments/arguments that got points.

Congratulations to all those who passed one or more EQE papers

The EPO has published the results for the EQE Main Exam 2017 here. Congratulations to all those who passed at least something - none of the papers are easy, especially when you take into account the stress.

The missing scores at 43, 44, 49, 50 are due to the extra check that is done - if you are just failing, everything you wrote is screened to see if you are "fit-to-practice". If so, extra points are awarded

Paper D

In particular, well-done to those who passed D - it was a difficult paper to get through to the end. The final passing rate is about the same as last year.

Paper C

Well-done passing C - the amount of documents and text you have to deal with always makes this sometime unpredictable.

Paper B

Together with A, this was the first year with the universal technologies. It looks like a success.


Paper A

This was expected to be quite difficult for some technical backgrounds. Of all the distributions, this is the most spread out. On A, the maximum number of points you can score is limited if you begin with a inferior solution - that may explain it to some extent.
.