Pre-Exam 2022: congratulations to all that passed! (Result letters are now available in MyEQE)
Congratulations to all that passed!!!
The Examiners' Report is not yet available [8 April 2022], so if you did not score 100 marks, you still need a bit of patience to know where you lost some - and where we may have given a different answer in our blog posts to legal and claims parts. And to know what has been neutralized and for what reasons.
Update 15 April 2022: Yesterday, the Examiner’ 'Report has been published on the EQE Compendium pages (in English only; German and French translations will follow shortly).
The Examiners' Report addresses the translation/transcription error in [005] of part 3 (Q.11-15; 25 marks), and provides:
Remark: There is a translation error in the German version [005] of the description, second line. It should read Poly-Y and not Poly-X.
Due to this translation error the Examination Board decided to award full marks to all candidates for questions 11 to 15.
W.r.t. Question 20 (5 marks) in part 4, the Examiners' Report confirms that the question (as presented to the candidates in Wiseflow) failed to indicate which claim was to be assessed for all statements of Question 20, and it provides:
Since the following sentence was missing on WiseFlow:
“Assume in the following that inventive step has to be assessed in respect of claim II.9.”
the Examination Board decided to award full marks to all candidates for question 20.
No statements were neutralized in the legal parts; no other statements were neutralized in claims analysis part 4.
So, 5 + 1 = 6 questions, 30 marks, were neutralized in this year's Pre-Exam. As a result, the pass-rate will not be in the typical range of 85-90%, but it may be expected to be over 95% - we will know from the official statistics (probably late June or early July).
The Examiners' Report also provides the missing/corrected text of part 3 and Q.20, and provides the intended answers for the neutralized statements, so that all candidates can determine the score that they would have achieved without neutralization.
I'm so happy the wait is over after what have been three very long weeks. I'll be registering for the main exam on Monday.
ReplyDeleteI resisted comparing my results after submission so I am now jogging my mind reading the model solutions for the first time. I can't therefore comment on an expected vs real grade, but I will go through my lost marks in the next few days.
Congratulations to all who passed. It makes for the beginning of a great weekend... and the first hurdle is now behind us. EQE 2023 - bring it on!
I got 8/10 points more than I expected when compared to the DeltaPatents model answers. Although, I only had two questions where I was projected to get 1 moark, 1 question in the lgal part and the CPA question in the claim analysis part. I expect the CPA question to be neutralized but apart from that, I suspect some Examiner answers will differ from the DP answers.
ReplyDeleteI also expect some neutralizations the the claims part due to the Poly-Y/X translation error in the German version.
DeleteWill also be interesting to see what they have decided on the dimensions for bags for yoga mats... there was a lot of discussion with good arguments for T as well as T for that…
I hope the Examiner’s Report will become available early next week!
Thanks for your comment Roel. I must say, there has been a few of these type of errors in the last couple of years which are not translation errors as such but transcription errors. How much checking do the EQE Board actually do because this sort of thing is inexcusable really. It's such a siple thing to check.
DeleteDear Dr. Woudenburg,
ReplyDeleteOne question: Once the main exam is passed, is the exam participant awarded something like a license (confirming the European Patent Attorney status)? What are some things which are conferred upon by the EPO to a person who has successful passed the main exam?
Thank you for your clarification regarding this matter.
See information on EQE website:
Deleteyou just get a results letter. With that letter AND your sufficiently long supervisory period, you can asked to be entered on the list - and you need to pay annual subscription.
Only one you have been entered on the list, you are a European Patent Attorney and you can only then use that title. People can check that on the EPO website (https://www.epo.org/applying/online-services/representatives.html)
You no longer get a certificate (you did until somewhere between 2010 and 2020). There is also no longer celebration at the EPO for all that were entered om the list.
What if your nationality is not a member state of the EPC? ;D
DeleteAnd what do you mean by "sufficiently long supervisory period"?
See Art.134(7) EPC.
DeleteSee IPREE and OJ 2021, A44 & OJ 2022, A12, as well as EQE webpages,
Yay! I will be exempted...!!!
Delete"will be"? How can you be certain? Have you already received a decision that grants such exemption to you?
Deletewho are you?
Deletewho are YOU????
DeleteI received an email from the Secretariat around 4am confirming my enrolment in the 2020 (yes, the exam that never was) pre-exam.
ReplyDeleteAnyone else get such a message?
I did as well. Strange.
Deleteme either
DeleteDear Dr. Woudenberg,
ReplyDeleteI would like to also acquire the European patent litigation certificate.
Any suggestions vis a vis this matter?
Dank je wel!
If you participated in the Dutch SBO courses in preparation for the Dutch exam, you may want to check whether you can benefit from a grandfather clause. In some other countries and for some other course, such grandfather clauses may apply.
DeleteUnfortunately we donot offer a course that leads to the Litigation Certificate for the UPC, as only universities can offer those courses.
Note that the UPCA gives European patent attorneys the right to speak at the UPC courts. So you only need a Litigation Certificate if you want to run a case before the UPCA without it a qualified lawyer or a European patent attorney with such a litigation certificate. If you do not wish so, why would you qualify for it?
Danke sehr Herr Woudenberg!
ReplyDelete"Futher European Patent Attorney + AGGRESIVE patent litigator" = dreamer!
DeleteDreams come true! My anonymous disbeliever!!!! Thank you!!!
DeleteExaminers report is up!
ReplyDeleteAll of part three and Question 20 were neutralised.
DeleteEveryone got 30 points for free.
ReplyDeleteThe Examiner’s Report is now available on the EQE Compendium pages https://www.epo.org/learning/eqe/compendium/preexamination.html
ReplyDeleteIt says to part 3:
“Remark: There is a translation error in the German version [005] of the description, second line. It should read Poly-Y and not Poly-X.
Due to this translation error the Examination Board decided to award full marks to all candidates for questions 11 to 15.”
Also, w.r.t. Question 20, it says:
“Since the following sentence was missing on WiseFlow:
“Assume in the following that inventive step has to be assessed in respect of claim II.9.”
the Examination Board decided to award full marks to all candidates for question 20.”
Just reviewed my answers to the exam script. My mark on my results letter is 4 marks below what I think I should have scored and I think it looks like my part 3 hasn't been neutralised. Anyone else think there has been an error in counting up their marks?
ReplyDeleteYes, based on the examiner's report, I think that I should have been awarded 2 points more due to the neutralization of Q.20 (I had one wrong answer in this question). KR, Anna
ReplyDeleteSame situation for me: when I compute my score, the total is 2 points more than what I was awarded. Did any of you contact the secretariat for this (and hear back from them)? It doesn't affect my "pass" result, so I'm wondering if it is worthwhile to bring it up...
Delete@RJC, Anonymous 15 April 2022 and GRE.
DeleteWould the scores match if you do not neutralize Q.20, as Anna suggests?
Or maybe if you do not neutralize Q.13, where the Examiners’ Report indicates “Claim 10 specifies that the material of the second face reduces the generation of sweat on the athlete’s body. This functional feature is clear from reading the claim per se. Poly-Y is not a limiting feature of claim 10. Accordingly the translation error in the German version of the paper does not impact interpretation of claim 10.” (which, to me, appears to be no longer relevant in view of the complete neutralization of part 3 – maybe it was first considered to only neutralize the statements that were directly affected by the translation error, while it was decided later to neutralize complete part 3?)
I suggest that the three of you contact the EQE secretariat, and indicate your EQEregnr, so that they can check. It is not important for those that passed, but it may be for those that are just below the pass level (even though that will be very few with so many neutralizations).
Thanks Roel. Yes my missing marks correspond to Q20 so it does not appear that my Q20 has been neutralized. I have emailed the exam secretariat so we will see what happens.
DeleteMy marks for question 20 also appear to not have been neutralised. I scored 4 marks less than I should have based on the Examiners' Report.
DeleteSimilar in my case - without neutralization of Q20, my scores would match. The neutralization of part 3 did not affect my points, even though I was reading the German version. KR, Anna
DeleteI just noted that in the pre-exam itself, statement 10.4 read:
ReplyDelete“To transfer the status of opponent to a different person during opposition proceedings, it is sufficient to file a declaration including the names, addresses and signatures of both the original opponent and the person wishing to take over the status of opponent.”
In the exam as published later in the compendium, and in the Examiners’ Report, it reads:
“In order to request a transfer of the status of opponent to a different person during opposition proceedings, it is sufficient to file a declaration including the names, addresses and signatures of both the original opponent and the person wishing to take over the status of opponent.”
I.e., the opening words differ between “To transfer the status of opponent” and “In order to request a transfer of the status of opponent”.
The wording as used in the exam is, in my view, preferred as it defines not just what is needed to file a request, but defines what is needed to also have the transfer done (i.e., to have a successful request without any deficiencies). Anyhow, interesting to see that the two texts are slightly different.
I just randomly logged into myeqe this evening and noticed a new date of June 9th on my "result" document. I hadn't received an email to notify me of a new document... Anyhow: my previously-notified mark apparently did not account for the neutralisation of Q. 20 so my overall mark was increased by 2%
ReplyDeleteSo what we have is yet another slip-up on the part of the examination boards/committees/secretariat. Disappointing that this happens.
Did that change you result from a FAIL into a PASS? If so: congrats!
DeleteIt appears that the candidates that, due to the now correct neutralization of Q.20, now have a PASS whereas they got a FAIL before did get an email from the EQE secretariat, so that they know that they can enroll now for the main exam.
DeleteSo only for those where it did not really matter (i.e., who already got a PASS or who also failed with the neutralization), the correction appears to have been done “silently” (as Dr Me informed us about in the comment above).
PASSED ages ago..but...I got two marks extra too! Just what on earth is going on..Mr Woudenberg? Well...THAT'S COOL EPO! WE ARE ALL FALLIBLE BEINGzzzzzz
Delete