Monday, 26 February 2018

Pre-Exam 2018: first impressions?




To all who sat the Pre-Exam today:
What are your first impressions to this year's Pre-Exam (English, French, and German)

Any general or specific comments?
Were the legal topics well balanced?
Were the various aspects of claims analysis well balanced?
Was the balance between EPC and PCT right for you?

Which of the legal questions did you consider particularly difficult, and which relatively 'easy'?
How much time did you allocate for the legal questions, how much for the claims analysis part? Did you deviate from our original plan (for example, took more time for the legal questions than planned)?
Which part did you do first, the legal part or the claims analysis?
How many marks do you expect to have scored in the legal part, in the claims analysis, and for the whole paper?
What is your expectation of the pass rate and the average score?

How did this year's paper compare to the earlier pre-exams of 2015-2017 (assuming your practiced those) w.r.t. the pre-exam as a whole, w.r.t. the legal part and w.r.t. the claims analysis part? 

The paper and our answers
Copies of the paper are available in all three languages: English available, French availableand German available. (With special thanks to the candidates that provided these clean copies). 

The core of our answers will be given in two separate blog posts: one for the legal questions and another post for the claims analysis part.

We look forward to your comments!
Comments are welcome in any official EPO language, not just English. So, comments in German and French are also very welcome!

Please do not post your comments anonymously - it is allowed, but it makes responding more difficult and rather clumsy ("Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous of 13-13-2018 13:13"), whereas using your real name or a pseudonym is more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation. You do not need to log in or make an account - it is OK to just put your (nick) name at the end of your post.

Please post your comments as to first impressions and general remarks to the Pre-Exam paper as a whole, and to the two parts (legal part and claims analysis) as whole parts to this blog.Please post substantial questions to specific legal questions to our post for the legal part and claims analysis related questions to our post for the claims analysis part

Thanks!

(c) DeltaPatents 2018

89 comments:

  1. I thought the legal part was somewhat easier than the last couple of years, but the claims part was rather hard...

    ReplyDelete
  2. The claims part felt a lot more confusing than the previous years (many more combinations of embodiments from the application and prior art to be checked against each other).
    Most examiners exchanging views after the pre-exam had wildly varying answers to the claims part questions. But nost of all It felt as if most questions had grayish tones in the world of the black and white pre-exam.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The legal questions were straightforward. However, the claims analysis seemed to be trying to shoehorn questions which have a degree of subtlety into a binary answer. There were several questions which I would have argued both ways without any hesitation depending on whether I was attacking or defending the claim. In such cases it seems unreasonable to have to answer true or false without providing any reasoning. This aspect of the pre-exam seems to be getting harder but not really in a way which enables better distinguishing of candidates.

    -James

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I fully agree !

      George

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The legal questions were reasonable. More PCT questions than previous years (EuroPCT in particular).
    The claims analysis was difficult - lots of prior art documents with tricky details.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It seemed like the claim sets just wouldn't stop coming in part 2... it seemed to me that some of the questions were arguable either way, but then claims analysis has always been harder for me than the legal part.

    Legal sections was pretty OK, I was surprised to see interlocutory revision coming up again as it seems to be a relatively obscure topic and it was on last year's exam. Felt like a lot of PCT too.


    -JugLid

    ReplyDelete
  7. Same feeling. Reasonable legal part, very difficult and often confusing claim analysis part. Let’s see what the result looks like. I am very excited to see your answers.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I had made all the pre-exams of previous years and had passed them all with some leeway. So I went into this pre-Exam with some confidence, then left it with slightly dampened enthusiasm. :D

    For some reason, claim analysis felt like it took forever this year (I thought it was just me at first, but turned out that was a recurring comment). It half dawned on me already when checking my bundle to see if there were no missing pages; I just checked for a quick comparison: 2015 - 30 pages, 2016 - 34 pages, 2017 - 34 pages, 2018 - 38(!) pages (i.e. pages with questions/texts/etc. and discounting the cover, instructions and calendars).

    To put some things in perspective: for the other exams I had typically needed under 2 hours for legal and under 1 hour for claim analysis. Today I needed about 2h05 for legal (i.e. similar, as I did double check things that weren't needed) and about 1h40 for claim analysis (i.e. closer to twice as long; with the additional caveat that I didn't have time to think as deep into, or even re-think, certain questions I would have wanted to).

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with the former posts: the legal part was much easier than the claim analysis.

    The legal part had one Question, Question 7 if I remember correctly, which was the same as one found on one of the Pre-Exams of last years (I don't remember which one).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. there were 2 legal questions that seemed to be in previous pre-exams...however, they were altered slightly this year so that a (slightly) different answer was necessary!!

      Delete
  10. I came into this exam having got 94 and 96 on the 2016/7 papers, each in around 2 1/2 hours. In contrast, this paper took almost the full 4 hours (no time for rechecking some of the answers i wanted to), and I was very unsure about much of the claim interpretation - many questions seemed arguable both ways, certainly not black and white. The proliferation of claim sets and embodiments made it even more tricky than previous years - in my view there was just far more to consider. I came in feeling confident and now just feel unsure and deflated - looking forward to the answers...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Feel exactly the same, the previous exams felt like a breeze compared to the latest one. It's a shame the new generations are getting punished for the succes of the past.

      Delete
    2. Fully agree! Why make this year's analysis part twice as hard as the last ones? The point system is so harsh that it will lead to many fails despite almost full marks on the legal part!

      Delete
  11. I found the answers for the legal questions of the pre-Exam on:
    http://gewerblicher-rechtsschutz.gg-ip.eu/2018/02/26/vorpruefung-2018/

    Do you agree with the results? :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Our answers to the legal parts are available on:

    http://pre-exam.blogspot.nl/2018/02/pre-exam-2018-our-answers-to-legal-part.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our answers to the legal part will probably be posted tomorrow.

      Delete
    2. I take it you mean the claims part?

      Delete
  13. Very hard to do a good job in 4 your.
    Legal part challenging and claim analysis very hard to understand, 4 prior art documents no time for re-checking anything.
    Steve

    ReplyDelete
  14. Some answers to the claims part now available on http://gewerblicher-rechtsschutz.gg-ip.eu/2018/02/26/vorpruefung-2018/

    Delta Patents - it would be good to see your answers soon. Thanks!

    I'd be interested to hear what you make of 11.2 and 14.2 - D1 paragraph [003] states that the counter increments when the flap is moved from CLOSED to OPEN, so I said 11.2 and 14.2 were T because the claims in question require that the counter increments when the blocking mechanism goes from OPEN to CLOSED. However, Fig 1 of D1 seems to show the opposite to what the text of [003] of D1 says (i.e. suggests that the counter increments when it goes from OPEN to CLOSED) and the German site I linked to above thinks 11.2 and 14.2 are both F. What do you think?

    -Billy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Billy,
      We are working on it. The claims part always needs more double, triple checking than the legal part, and -as more often- we have some differences between us. We will review and conclude on our provisional answers asap, and then post them. We try to find an optimum comprimise between quality and speed in providing our answers...
      I personally found this the most challenging claims analysis part of all pre-exams so far... and it was very mechanical, with puzzles whether things are counted when going from open to closed or back (I tend to agree with you for 11.2), how blocking, closing and other means interact, etc.

      Delete
    2. I think there is good reason for confusion on 11.2 and 14.2. Either the reference numerals for 116 and 111 of embodiment 1 of D1 were wrong in the picture (they were reversed), or someone got their closed/opens mixed around when translating that part of the description. The drawing doesn't correspond with the description provided for it.

      Delete
    3. I also agree with Billy here. Although I have other objections to some of their answers as well, I also thought the same regarding the first embodiment of D1. Though I should admit that I would be able to argue the opposite opinion in the real world as well. However putting the pre-exam googles on and limiting myself to only "true" or "false", the decision of "in response to closed to open" should not disclose "in response to open to closed" had more weight for me.

      They also had 2 easy mistakes on legal side as well, which they have corrected later.

      -Burak

      Delete
    4. Similar with clock-wise and counter-clockwise: depends on the orientation of the device relative to the viewer... so can it be used to distinguish?

      Delete
    5. To Anonymous:

      I am not sure if the positions are relative to the viewer. The claim explicitly states that the aperture is closed in the closed position (though no limitation for "open position" in the claim). This is what I thought.

      -B

      Delete
    6. See [007] of the application, second half: "Although in these figures..."shown to pivot clockwise..., clear to the skilled person that when the jug is turned such that the handle is on the left side... would pivot anti-clockwise", in other words: the shown sense of rotation is not limiting.

      Delete
  15. I found the legal part slightly more difficult than in previous years due to the increased (Euro) PCT questions.
    However, the claims analysis part was horrendous compared with all previous years due to the "open" formulation of many questions and the variation (eg. R43(2). There seemed not enough time to do this part in 2 hours without making educated guesses towards the end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The claims part took me 2,5 hours and I still had to guess 19 and 20 due to lack of time, whereas I could do the claims parts of 2015, 2016 and 2016 each in slightly below 2 hours. Luckily the legal part was less difficult so could do that in 1,5 h, otherwise I would not even have gotten halfway the claims part.
      Did they deliberately make it more difficult? Why? Or, why did they not recognize this was much more difficult? There was not 30 minutes extra for the pre-exam, only for the main exam papers!!!

      Delete
  16. Hi Roel,
    I don't understand why 4.4 should be T.

    GL E-VI,3 state:" Observations by third parties received after the decision to grant/refuse the application has been pronounced in oral proceedings or issued in written proceedings (see G 12/91) will be included in the file without taking note of their content. Observations by third parties received once proceedings are no longer pending (e.g. after publication of the mention of the grant) will be neither taken into account nor made available for file inspection."
    So since application is still pending and the observations are included into the file it is not like if they are not taken in consideration at all.
    What do you think?

    thanks, Stefano

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. sorry wrong section....

      Delete
    2. From what you cited (from the 2017-Guidelines...):

      "will be neither taken into account"

      So, not considered at all.

      Delete
    3. But the grant has not been mentioned yet, only the decision to grant was mailed to the applicant.

      - Flora

      Delete
    4. Se G 12/91: mention of the grant is not relevant, but the date of handover of the decision to the EPO internal post.

      Delete
  17. I found that I only needed to use one book in his exam - Hoekstra - instead of the past papers I’d done in which I typically needed more such as the PCT applicant’s guides. The claims part was what I found most difficult, whilst apart from a few strange ones in the legal part, it seemed ok. Don’t know why they made the claims part harder this year!

    ReplyDelete
  18. The legal part was quite okay and had just a few traps and a few difficult questions, in particular questions 9 and 10.

    The claim part was horrible. Six different sets of claims, 4 documents having different embodiments - everything was just confusing and I lost 2 or 4 points to some confusion of embodiments/claims. Way harder and more complex than any other pre-exams.

    I had a very bad feeling right after the pre-exam but according to the preliminary solutions I should score 84 (42+42) pts anyway – which is kind of unexpected, but I don’t want to complain :-D.

    Marko

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. where are solutions to analysis part?

      Delete
    2. http://pre-exam.blogspot.com/2018/02/pre-exam-2018-our-answers-to-claims.html

      Delete
  19. Also as someone else wrote as a comment in another post - I wanted to say a big thanks to all of DeltaPatents team for the Pre-Exam book. I studied exclusively with it starting 3 weeks before the exam (only on the weekends + three days taken off work last week), and passed with a wide safety margin according to your solutions =). Thank you and I will be using your other books extensively for EQE preparation!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hi,
    I attended the EQE pre-exam for the first time.
    I think it was a very hard pre-exam.
    The part related to the Claim Analysis was very lenghty.
    Legal part reported some very specific questions (e.g. interlocutory reviews).

    Please, can someone give me an information regarding how EPO communicates the results to every candidates?

    Jack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If assuming a similar time schedule as last year:
      In probably 3-4 weeks, a long list of EQE registration numbers and scores will be puublished on the EQE webpages. Shortly thereafter, you get a registered letter at the address you used for enrolment with your official result.

      Delete
    2. Thank you very much Roel!
      Jack

      Delete
  21. It would be a nice option, expecially for non mother-language candidates, to have an extra 30 minute of time.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I was wondering - do delta patents have any communication with the EQE committee or pass on any comments? Or have any candidates submitted comments on the questions to them? Given that the claims part was so much longer and more difficult than in previous years, not to mention the confusion with some of the prior art embodiments (I am sure the first embodiment of D1 was incorrectly labelled/described), it appears that the paper was not properly proof tested. Do you think they will accept both answers for some questions if there are major problems? If the pass rate is much lower than previous years, is there any chance of them dropping the pass mark to compensate? I feel pretty deflated after that exam! My colleagues in previous years said they sat around twiddling their thumbs for the last hour or so, but everyone I have spoken to was still working up to the end and some did not finish

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, DeltaPatents has no connection with the EQE committees.

      All tutors are yearly invited by the Academy to a meeting with the EQE Committees at a meeting organized in September or October after the exam to discuss the past exam. Questions can be submitted by tutors for that meeting in advance, and also during the meeting. In the context of that meeting, we pass on a lot of comments to the committee, but other tutors hardly do. The meeting is however far after the results are out, so has no effect on the marking if the last exam. By the way, the exam committees are composed of EPO and epi(=EP attorney) members - you can find a list of them on the EQE webpages.

      The exam committees do an extensive proof testing. A short outline of that was published in epi Journal 4/2016, after the procedure was explained at such a Tutor-Committee meeting. Note that as of the latest IPREE-amendment, there is also a new "Exam Committee V shall be entrusted with the quality management of the papers. It shall advise the other Examination Committees in this respect." (Rule 27(2)(e) IPREE).

      The REE/IPREE has a well-defined marking scheme, and defines that there is a PASS at 70 or more for the pre-exam. Th supervisory board could change those rules (as they changed the pass level from 50 to 70 after the first two pre-exams), but the committee is bound to them. The committee does not have any discretion to deviate from that, except by considering both T and F correct for a statement if there are good arguments for both, as happened a few times in the past. But, to be hinest, at this moment I donot see such a need for this exam yet - all statements seem to be unambigiously answerable.

      I do agree that this claims part was considerably more elaborate than the earlier pre-exams, but also in 2015-2017 most candidates stayed until the end (for 2012-2013 it was very diffent); I have the impression from comments on this blog, from emails we got from our candidates, and from doing te exam ourselves that this year's exam was a step-up in time challenge, and expect the passrate to be quite a bit lower than in previous years (it was 75-80% in 2015-2017). Many candidates reported to us that they could not finish in time and/or had to really rush through Q.19 and Q.20 as the claims part took them much longer than with previous exams.

      Also, the risk of accidentally looking at a wrong claim, prior art document or embodiment was quite high, so a good bookkeeping was required - but that was the same in the last 3 exams.

      Delete
    2. what do you think about general quality of drawings this year to respect past examinations?

      Delete
    3. For me too time was not enough, I have to admit that I scored 5 points (according to Deltapatents) for some questions in claim analysis just for pure luck.

      Delete
    4. The claim analysis was far too complex, confusing and too long. There was not enough time to finish the paper and I ended up guessing the last few questions. The whole point of pre-EQE was to make sure candidates have sufficient foundation of knowledge and skills, rather than rushing through a paper and ended up guessing and hoping for luck. The committee should do something about this year claim analysis. It is unfair and unfortunate that the claim analysis this year was so complex and time-pressured that many capable candidates who are on the borderline may end up failing, not because they couldnt do it but because they had to rush and guess. A very poor paper.

      Delete
    5. I agree that the claim analysis was disappointing. It was complicated and some some prior art/embodiments made it confusing. Time was also a very big problem. People's jobs and lives depend on these type of exams so the committee should look at the claim analysis bit again and in fairness, they should lower the pass mark this year to compensate for time. What are the chances of that happening? It seems that alot of candidates struggle on timing.

      Delete
    6. Claim analysis was awful. Guessed the last three questions because of time and now borderline according to solutions from Delta.
      Exam board must do something about this paper. Cannot be good that people had to result into guessing.

      Delta - what are your thoughts?
      Is this something that can be challenged?

      Delete
    7. I personally had not enough time to finish claim analysis, comparing trying early pre-exam in which, independently from point scored, I have always been whitin 4 hours.

      Delete
    8. Do you think that the exam board are aware of all these issues this year?

      Delete
    9. REE Article 3
      Duties of the Supervisory Board

      (2) The Supervisory Board shall, in consultation with the Examination Board, determine the nature, structure and number of the examination papers and the time allowed for each.

      (3) The Supervisory Board shall monitor and evaluate the conduct and results of the examination. It shall also supervise the Examination Secretariat in its duties as specified in Article 9 below and its further duties as specified in the IPREE.

      (5) The Supervisory Board shall decide what statistical information should be compiled by the Examination Secretariat pursuant to Article 22(3) and to whom it should be disseminated.

      (7) The Supervisory Board shall be authorised to draw up and amend the IPREE in accordance with this Regulation after consulting the Examination Board, the Examination Committees and the Examination Secretariat. Prior to their adoption, the President of the EPO may refuse any provision resulting in an increased financial liability for the EPO.

      Article 6
      Duties of the Examination Board
      (5) The Examination Board shall scrutinise the marks for each paper proposed by the Examination Committees and decide whether a candidate should pass or fail the examination. The Examination Board may revise candidates' marks or instruct the Examination Committees to re-mark their papers according to a revised marking sheet.


      Article 24
      Appeals
      (1) An appeal shall lie from decisions of the Examination Board and the Secretariat which adversely affect the appellant, but only on the grounds that this Regulation or any provision relating to its application has been infringed.

      IPREE
      Rule 10
      Pre-examination
      (3) The purpose of this paper shall be to assess candidates' ability to answer legal questions and questions relating to the drafting of claims as defined in Article 1(4) REE. The duration of this paper shall be four hours.

      Yes, appeal can be filed on the ground of violation of IPREE Rule 10(3): seems like this pre-exam was not designed for 4 hours but for more. Disciplinary Board of Appeal should thus allow appeals based on violation of IPREE... IF the Board can become convinced that the pre-exam was indeed not designed for 4 hours, or at least not doable for well-qualified candidates in 4 hours. Statistics on scores on questions 19 and 20 may be helpful. But some candidates start with claims part, so for them probably statistics on questions 9 and 10 show poor results.

      S.

      Delete
    10. I hope the supervisory board will look at the claim analysis irrespective of stats. This part made the length of the exam well beyond 4 hours. Too many claims and embodiments (with confusing bits and some questions were open to interpretation) to deal with in 2-2.5 hours.

      Delete
    11. It seems that there may be some justification (i.e. insufficient time) to challenge the claim analysis part.

      Delete
  23. I also had the impression that in the earlier pre-exam years, most-if not all-the questions were on separate sheets. In the last years, in the claims analysis part, there have been some sheets containing 2 questions. This was the case this year - which in my view increases the confusion when you are reviewing claims which are usually applicable to specific questions. Annoying when you have to locate the relevant question which has dissappeared into the pile! The Exam Committee could consider 1 question per sheet in the future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2017: 12 and 13 on one page, also 14 and 15; 19 and 20.
      2016: 12 and 13 on one page, also 14 and 15.
      2015: 13 and 14 on one page, also 15 and 16; 17 and 18.

      See http://www.epo.org/learning-events/eqe/compendium/preexamination.html

      Delete
  24. I heard someone say that no effect of the pre-eam is visible in the main exam: well-prepared candidates are well-prepared and pass main exam papers in one or two sits, whereas poorly prepared candidates pass pre-exam at 70 and then fail the main exam multiple times with very low scores for several papers. So, the pre-eam did lot lead to a reduction of exam design and exam marking effort, but to an increase because of the pre-exam paper. The claims analysis discussion also shows that designing a pre-exam is a terribly difficult job, as there should be no room for different understanding when the questions are omly true/flse and no resoning can be given (true, but... or false, but...). So it looks like everyone is better of without the pre-exam than with it (except maybe its founders that may not like to see their baaby killed). When will they abandon the Pre-Exam?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Or why not have the pre-exam consisting of legal questions only? Forces candidates to start studying the legal EQE syllabus early, allows unambiguous and clear T/F questions as history shows, and still keeps out the non-prepared. Can have 20 legal questions, to have a larger coverage of the whole syllabus.
      Anyone knows whether this has ever been considered?

      Delete
    2. No reason to expect that having only legal questions would reduce clarity/interpretation problems actually. In fact, many successful appeals for past pre-exams were for ambiguously worded legal questions.

      Personally, I think it's good to have both parts in there. The legal part tests the foundation of your knowledge of patent law, and the claims part tests your logical reasoning/intuition for drafting. For me, preparing for the claims part was actually pretty interesting, since some of the reasoning/formulations used were the opposite of what you learn on the job, but presumably shows you a bit more how examiners tend to think about claims.

      Delete
    3. I dont have objections for legal and claim analysis but i do have a problem with this year claim analysis. The claims part was too complex, too confusing and too long.

      Delete
    4. The pre-exam is supposed to filter out unprepared candidates from sitting the main exam. I think its introduction is positive because serious candidates will prepare for it and thus be on track in their preparation for the main exam. However, I noticed a steady increase in the difficulty levels for the pre-exam since 2012. The fact that this year's claims analysis part was extra complex/time-consuming will only make the trend more pronounced. This trend does beg the question, whether the original goal of the pre-exam is being achieved.
      A proposal for the future could be to vary the pass mark each year based on the actual difficulty experienced so that the pass rate of e.g. 70% of candidates is achieved in the case of an exceptionally difficult paper. The goal of ensuring candidates are preparing correctly for the main exam would be achieved.

      Delete
    5. No point having a pre-EQE exam paper designed so that candidates run out of time. This is not a good test to see if candidates are ready to take the full EQE. They need to take action this year.

      Delete
    6. Yes, you're right ! All those who passed the pre-Exam 2018 also automatically pass the full exam too, those that failed just get a pre-Exam pass. What do you think?

      Delete
    7. Results are out. They made 30% fail. No comment about length in Examiner's Report. No compensation for too long exam. No indication that EQE Board or Supervision Board will take action. Disappointing, very much.

      Delete
  25. I had answered all of the previous papers under time pressure. I did not have any time related issue in any of them. I got more than 90 marks at these exams.
    When I sat in 2018 pre-exam, legal part seemed parallel to the previous papers in terms of both difficulty of the questions and the time required to answer them. However, when I started to read the claim analysis questions, I realized that the texts and the questions are so long and requires at least half an hour more time to answer them (i.e. 4,5 hours). When I checked the previous papers after the exam, I could notice that the number of pages were 30, 34 or 37 at most. However, 2018 pre-exam has 42 pages (28 out of 42 pages are coming from claim analysis part). If a rough calculation has been made, the pre-examination would require at least half an hour more time. Besides, the claim analysis questions were pretty harder and time-consuming. Accordingly, time available for the paper was by far not enough. Furthermore, questions were not clear and they were open to interpretation. These kind of questions should not take place in an examination applied under time pressure. These kind of questions have not been seen in the history of EQE. This makes me think that the purpose of the exam is not to distinguish the ones who have knowledge, ability and experience to deal with EP applications from the ones who do not, within a reasonable period of time anymore. Indeed, it seems that the purpose of the exam is to eliminate more candidates as possible. Because there was not balance between the questions and available time, I hope they can provide balance in the calculation of the marks. They may apply different methodology in calculating the marks or compensate the damage caused by inadequate time in any other way of calculation. Because, such an effort is required for providing balanced examination system for the candidates who gave their valuable time and effort (and money, no need to mention about it) for this examination.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I agree. The claim analysis were not fit for purpose this year. It was very tricky and certainly too long. The whole paper was longer than the allocated 4 hours which should not be the case.

    I think the board has got it wrong this year and it will be fair to apply compensation.

    SS

    ReplyDelete
  27. I definitevely agree with you both (Anonymous 6 march 2018 at 16:07 and 20:21). The legart part was comparable to the previous year in terms of difficulty and clarity.
    The claim part was long compared to the previous and too confusing. Actually the level of difficulty was not merely the same, requiring more than the allocated time, which was not the case, and this is not fair.
    I got the same feeling that This makes me think that the purpose of the exam is not to distinguish the ones who have knowledge, ability and experience to deal with EP applications from the ones who do not, within a reasonable period of time anymore. Indeed, it seems that the purpose of the exam is to eliminate more candidates as possible. Because there was not balance between the questions and available time, I hope they can provide balance in the calculation of the marks.
    Strongly hope they will take all this into account. As you wrote, They may apply different methodology in calculating the marks or compensate the damage caused by inadequate time in any other way of calculation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This needs to be looked at. Trainee's jobs and careers depend very heavily on these exams. It is unfair if some can't continue because of the second part (claims analysis) of the paper. In my view, the claim analysis was perplexed and nowhere near enough time to complete it. Outcry.

      Delete
  28. This needs to be looked at. Trainee's jobs and careers depend very heavily on these exams. It is unfair if some can't continue because of the second part (claims analysis) of the paper. In my view, the claim analysis was perplexed and nowhere near enough time to complete it. Outcry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do question the value of pre-EQE exams after this year. What is the point of having a pre EQE exam that capable candidates cannot finish in time. This is not a test for suitable candidates but a process to eliminate as many people as possible. If the argument for having a long pre-EQE exam is that candidates are not given that much time in the final EQE exams to do the questions, then what is the difference between pre-EQE and final EQE. There is no point for a pre-EQE exam at all. We should scrap pre-EQE and do the final EQE exams. Certainly, marks for 2018 pre-EQE needs adjustment to reflect on time insufficiency.

      Delete
  29. Honestly, it was impossible to deal with claim part in 2 hours, you had to gain time with legal part for it and i think this is not fair because even if you are weel preparated in legal part you can't do a good job if you run too fast.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Until now, 22 days have passed. Wondering if we will receive the results this week or if we have to wait until the very end of March. According to the Mail sent at March 8th, it could certainly take until next week.

    Here's the time it took for publishing the results in the last years:
    2017: 23 days
    2016: 18 days
    2015: 25 days
    2014: 28 days
    2013: 23 days

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I called the Examination Secretariat today, they said late March, likely 28th or 29th.

      Delete
    2. Wow, that takes a long time.
      Let's hope they spend their time well into thinking about compensation for the claim analysis part.

      Delete
    3. Results this year on 21 March on the website, Examiner's Report on 22 March, official letters will be send as of 3 April.

      Pre-Exam was on 26 Feb, so:
      2018: 23 days
      and same as last year.

      By the way, last year or the year before, the results also came out earlier than announced -- see the blogs of the previous years.

      Delete
  31. What is actually the chance that the EPO will grant a compensation in points, because the exam was too long for the given time frame of 4 hours? I was also one of them who had to rush.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think zero, as they EQE rules do not give them any room to depart from the fixed marking scheme...

      A

      Delete
    2. But how will they act? They must take corrective action as they designed an exam that was too long? Or was it planned and do they want a pass rate that is the lowest ever? Maybe even as low as 60%??? Or???

      Delete
    3. The Appeal Board may get very busy this summer... Everybody not getting ready in time, or at least not without rushing too fast, is violation of the 4 hour length defined in the EQE rules. Should that not be a succesful ground for appeals?

      Delete
    4. That may be a way out indeed.

      A

      Delete
    5. Last year, the pass rare for B was 88%. Can anyone from the EQE Committees or Examination Board explain why a Pre-Exam rare can be lower, it already was at 76%, now will be even lower?!

      Delete
  32. I also contacted the EQE Secretariat and it was confirmed that the results will be published by 28th or 29th of March. The Appeal Fee is 1200€. Is there any explanation why it takes more than a month and not one day? The results are supposed to be counted by a machine..

    ReplyDelete
  33. results are out ! http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/823bc64bd7617c3ac12582570055d158/$FILE/results_eqe_pre-examination_2018.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But today is not March 28-29?!?! Thank you Exam Secretariat for giving such adequate information even today!!!

      Delete
    2. See http://pre-exam.blogspot.nl/2018/03/pre-exam-2018-results-are-out.html for pass-rate excl and incl no-shows

      Examiner's Report not yet available

      Delete
  34. hmm, 69 points :(. When do you expect the examiners report will be published?

    br, P

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi P,
      Examiner's Report is also available, since yesterday. Link is on our "Results are out" page.

      Delete
  35. ** POLL **

    We are currently scheduling our courses for next EQE. And, as part of that, we want to POLL whether there is sufficient interest in two new Pre-Exam focused courses.

    We are considering to start two very intense courses, each of one block, for candidates already having some legal knowledge and some claims analysis experience, such as resitters, but who need more knowledge and practice to be successful at the Pre-Exam. Questions/Cases and a thorough discussion of the Answers, organized per key topic, will get the candidate to a higher level, and show the candidate where to improve further. We consider to offer:

    a) a 5-DAY LEGAL course (1 block)
    Thematically organized along key topics of the EPC and the PCT, largely Q&A-based and also including some lecturing on key topics, as well as a discussion of a legal part of one or two pre-exams ;

    b) a 4-DAY CLAIMS ANALYSIS course (1 block)
    Thematically organized along the claims analysis topics tested in the Pre-Exam, and also including some lecturing to introduce themes, and lots of practice with small cases as well as (part of) the pre-exams.

    Please send us an email at training@deltapatents.com if you would be interested to participate in one of these courses or both. With sufficient interest, we can develop the courses and organize the courses in autumn. It is a POLL, so there is no obligation on you if you say are interested.

    Of course we will continue to organize our 12-day Pre-Exam Integrated course (4 blocks of 3 days interactive sessions from June to January) and its Distance Learning version (2-/3-weekly 1,5-hour video conference sessions from mid April to January) for full pre-exam syllabus coverage, and our Pre-Exam Methodology courses (1-day Legal; 2-day claims analysis) for final exam preparation. These courses target first time sitters as well as resitters that need to acquire a lot of knowledge and that want to distribute their study time over a longer period.

    For our existing courses for Pre-Exam and Main Exam preparation, see https://www.deltapatents.com/eqe-pre-exam.html and the brochures and links therein.

    The DeltaPatents team

    ReplyDelete