Pre-Exam 2018: the results are out!!
The results are out! They can be found here.
The results for the pre-examination of the European qualifying Examination 2018 are listed according to the EQE Registration Number (EQEReg).
Dispatch of the result letters is foreseen for 3 April 2018, according to the document with the results.
935 candidates enrolled, 893 candidates actually sat the pre-exam.
Of the 893 candidates that sat the pre-exam, 655 (73%) passed and 238 (27%) failed. This is a approx. 5%-point lower pass rate than in the previous years (e.g., 2017: 78% and 22%)
When measured relative to the number of candidates enrolled (as the results are usually presented in the official statistics), 655 of 935 (70%) passed and 280 (30%) did not pass (including the 42 no-shows). This is a 6%-point lower pass rate than in 2017 (2017: 76% and 24%).
Examiner's Report and answers
The Examiner's Report is not yet available (status: 21 March 2018; 17:35).
For 2 statements, marks were awarded for both T and F: statements 12.2 and 12.4. See the Examiner's Report for details.
Our legal answers got full marks, as did our claims analysis answers.
Resitters
Of the 212 candidates that did not pass in 2017, (only) 125 were resitting this year: 14% of all sitters were resitters this year, first-time resitters and multiple resitters. Of all 125 resitters, 59 passed, 66 failed again, corresponding to a resitter pass rate of 47%.
30 candidates that failed in 2016 and 2017 sat again (these 30 being included in the 212 mentioned just above): 12 of these multiple-resitters passed, 18 failed again.
13 candidates that failed in 2015, 2016 and 2017 sat again (included in the 30 mentioned just above): 5 passed, 8 failed again.
2 candidates that failed in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 sat again: 1 passed, 1 failed again.
As we also reported in earlier years, the resitter pass rate is considerably lower than the overall pass rate. As the numbers are not that large, it is hard to conclude whether the pass rate reduces with number of resits - which was reported earlier for the main exam.
Roel
(c) DeltaPatents, 2018
The results for the pre-examination of the European qualifying Examination 2018 are listed according to the EQE Registration Number (EQEReg).
Dispatch of the result letters is foreseen for 3 April 2018, according to the document with the results.
935 candidates enrolled, 893 candidates actually sat the pre-exam.
Of the 893 candidates that sat the pre-exam, 655 (73%) passed and 238 (27%) failed. This is a approx. 5%-point lower pass rate than in the previous years (e.g., 2017: 78% and 22%)
When measured relative to the number of candidates enrolled (as the results are usually presented in the official statistics), 655 of 935 (70%) passed and 280 (30%) did not pass (including the 42 no-shows). This is a 6%-point lower pass rate than in 2017 (2017: 76% and 24%).
 |
| Mark distribution Pre-Exam 2018 (courtesy Jessica Kroeze) |
Examiner's Report and answers
For 2 statements, marks were awarded for both T and F: statements 12.2 and 12.4. See the Examiner's Report for details.
Our legal answers got full marks, as did our claims analysis answers.
Resitters
Of the 212 candidates that did not pass in 2017, (only) 125 were resitting this year: 14% of all sitters were resitters this year, first-time resitters and multiple resitters. Of all 125 resitters, 59 passed, 66 failed again, corresponding to a resitter pass rate of 47%.
30 candidates that failed in 2016 and 2017 sat again (these 30 being included in the 212 mentioned just above): 12 of these multiple-resitters passed, 18 failed again.
13 candidates that failed in 2015, 2016 and 2017 sat again (included in the 30 mentioned just above): 5 passed, 8 failed again.
2 candidates that failed in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 sat again: 1 passed, 1 failed again.
As we also reported in earlier years, the resitter pass rate is considerably lower than the overall pass rate. As the numbers are not that large, it is hard to conclude whether the pass rate reduces with number of resits - which was reported earlier for the main exam.
Pass rate comparison
This Pre-Exam had a lower pass rate than each of the earlier Pre-Exams. Whereas the pass rate seemed to have settled at around 75% of all sitters, and 77-78% of all that enrolled (including no-shows), the pass rate was lower by about 5% points. With about 900 candidates, that corresponds to 45 more candidates failing the exam.
Pass rates based on published lists of
marks for 2014-2018 are shown in the table below. Column 2-5 indicate the numbers for all enrolled candidates; columns 6-8 for those that actually sat the exam (i.e., exclusing the zero scores). For 2015, also pass rates after appeals are shown, derived from the statistics as published here and its difference with the rates from the published lists of mark - in 2015, 24 candidates got a pass after an initial fail, including those that did not appeal (see the Addendum from the Examiner's Report 2015):
Enrolled
|
Pass (of
enrolled) |
Fail (of
enrolled) |
No-show
|
Sitting
|
Pass (of
sitters) |
Fail (of
sitters) |
|
2018
|
935
|
70%
|
26%
|
4,5%
|
893
|
73%
|
27%
|
2017
|
884
|
76%
|
21%
|
2,7%
|
860
|
78%
|
21%
|
2016
|
818*
|
75%
|
21%
|
3,7%
|
787
|
78%
|
22%
|
2015 after appeals
|
810
|
76%
|
22%
|
1,8%
|
795
|
77%
|
23%
|
2015
|
811
|
73%
|
25%
|
1,8%
|
796
|
74%
|
26%
|
2014
|
662
|
84%
|
14%
|
2,1%
|
648
|
86%
|
14%
|
Update 6 July 2018: statistics
The EPO published the statistics of EQE 2018 on the EQE Results and Statistics pages (on or shortly after 2 July 2018).
The Pre-Exam statistics incorporate the effects of the appeals that were succesful in interlocutory revision. As was reported and suggested by the updated Examiner's Report published in June, the pass/fail decisions were reviewed for all candidates w.r.t. statements 4.4, 5.3 and 13.1, as was also done in previous years (see e.g. the Addentum to the Examiner's Report of Pre-Exam 2015). Most likely, some individual appeals have also been allowed on other statements.
As a result, the number of candidates that passed increased from 655 to 689, i.e. 34 more candidates passed (3,8% of the candidates that sat the exam).
As a result, the pass-rate for the pre-exam 2018 increased from 70,1% 73,7 % when calculated relative to all enrolled candidates, or 73,3% to 77,2% when calculated relative to all candidates that actually sat the exam (all non-zero scores).
So, of all 893 candidates that sat the exam, 689 passed (77,2%) after the broadly applied review after interlocutory revision.
The Pre-Exam statistics incorporate the effects of the appeals that were succesful in interlocutory revision. As was reported and suggested by the updated Examiner's Report published in June, the pass/fail decisions were reviewed for all candidates w.r.t. statements 4.4, 5.3 and 13.1, as was also done in previous years (see e.g. the Addentum to the Examiner's Report of Pre-Exam 2015). Most likely, some individual appeals have also been allowed on other statements.
As a result, the number of candidates that passed increased from 655 to 689, i.e. 34 more candidates passed (3,8% of the candidates that sat the exam).
As a result, the pass-rate for the pre-exam 2018 increased from 70,1% 73,7 % when calculated relative to all enrolled candidates, or 73,3% to 77,2% when calculated relative to all candidates that actually sat the exam (all non-zero scores).
So, of all 893 candidates that sat the exam, 689 passed (77,2%) after the broadly applied review after interlocutory revision.
Roel
(c) DeltaPatents, 2018
SHARE:
Maybe fair, but contrary Rule 6(2) of the Implementing provisions to the Regulation on the European qualifying examination, which has the 70 hardcoded in it
ReplyDeleteMay need to call the Exam sect to see if other questions were appealed/considered. Its seems buzzard that more claim analysis questions were not changed
ReplyDeleteA.M
May need to call exam sect and see if other questions are considered/appealed. Its bizzare that no more claim analysis questions were changed.
ReplyDeleteA. M
They should definitely change 18.4. Cgk has to be in the question otherwise it looks more like a novelty statement. This is where the confusion for candidates can easily occur.
ReplyDeleteTo make it fair, I think they really need to change a few more claim analysis answers so that borderline candidates are not unfairly penalised by an awful paper.
A. M
Just to mention that borderline candidates would of easily passed the previous pre eqe EXAMS prior to 2018.
ReplyDeleteA. M
Totally agree.Q18. 4 needs correcting if 4.4 and 5.3, 13.1 are corrected as they were more clearer than 18.4 and 14.3.
ReplyDeleteI hope the supervisory board still looks at this and rectify more claim analysis questions.
Can supervisory board still rectify?
Isn't interlocutory revision 3 months from receipt?
ReplyDeleteWould be good to know if people have appealed claim analysis questions particularly 18.4 and 14.3. Some of us are still hoping.
ReplyDeleteJTG
18.4 and all 18 statements were appealed, for 14.3 I don't know.However people got their lettes with the change of decision already, and it does not state based on which question. We will never learn because the cases are closed and EPO has discrition about this and does not share even with the candidates who appealed. The only official reasoning is the change of the examiner's report. I must say that only people who wrote or read the detailed arguments in the appeal (4.4, 5.3, 13.1) can actually underastand the short reasoning im the amended examiner's report.
DeleteStill hoping that the EPO will change a few more ambiguous questions. Hopefully, they have already done this but not necessarily detail this in the Examiner's report.
DeleteThis is crucial because it will affect candidates ability to take the EQE papers.
EPO only informs on change of decision. They do not specify based on which appealed questions did they make up their mind and there is no reasoning given either. Appealants have appealed a number of questions, not only one or two, this is why you will not get an answer as to whether the above questions of interest are ambiguous.
ReplyDeleteNo, the cases that the Examination Board did not overturn in interlocutory revision are NOT closed, they are now with the Disciplinary Board of Appeal. Unless withdrawn by the candidate. So, there could be some penning. Can someone inform us whether he/she still has one penning and on which statement?
DeleteDonotLikeRoulette
I really don't understand, if statements could be eventually answered even with the opposite answer (at least 4 till now), then the entire examination is void because the time of the entire session was affected.
ReplyDeleteDear colleagues, I am little bit confused. Which are, at the time, the statements that have been allowed with both answers by the secretariat?
ReplyDeleteOther changes could be issued?
S.
Why did you not appeal yourself if this is so important for you?
DeleteWould this mean that other answers could be considered correct but not mentioned in the Examiner's report.
ReplyDeleteSurely there is a massive error on behalf of the EPO as timing was a BIG BIG factor. This can be seen by the amount of questions the EPO corrected already. This MUST be taken into account by the EPO board. Surely
Cannot agree more. The timing is not correct.for this exam so borderline candidates should be given the benefit of the doubt.
ReplyDeleteJTG
Has anyone got a letter from EPO informing of change of results yet. Still waiting but how are we suppose to know.
ReplyDeleteJ
No for me not
DeleteI'm curious to know if there was a new chief examiner that sets the pre-EQE this year. It is out of sync from previous pre-EQE papers, especially the claim analysis. Roel, do you know?
ReplyDeleteThis year's paper has been a total shambles.
J
I donot know. But at the Tutor meetings (this year mid October), the main drafter often participates and may also be the one presenting the paper.
DeleteIt would be good to understand why the drafter for this paper has made it so much harder and confusing and more time constrained than other pre-Eqe.
DeleteWhy is there a need to make it so much more difficult? Without prior warning to candidates.
Hi Roel, it would be good if you can somehow let the EPO know that they have got this paper terribly wrong in terms of time and difficulty this year.
DeleteBare in mind that this paper is meant to be designed for candidates with 2 or 3 years experience. NOT for experienced attorneys, tutors or Examiner's to sit.
Michael
This pre-exam was really made with feet
ReplyDeleteI can't understand why the Secretariat instead to make such a bad figure changing even "five" statements'answers, which demonstrate that they are neither able to answer to the questions they propose, they don't lower the pass rate to 60, that would be fair because everybody agree that time was too short.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion there are some more even worse statements to change.
4.4, 5.3, 12.2, 12.4, 13.1 admitted by Committee.
DeleteAnd maybe 14.3 and 18.4 will be overturned by the Appeal Board?
14.3 and 18.4 really needs to be overturned and changed. It's clear everyone agrees these questions and not clear and so it needs correcting immediately and way before EQE registration. Careers are on the line here.
DeleteIf these are not changed by Appeal board, then shame on the Board of Appeal. Does anybody know an EPI representative to make a complaint to the Board.
Jay
epi Board: https://patentepi.com/en/epi-bodies/board.html
DeleteThe Board Members have competence in all questions regarding the epi, the EPO and the EPC.
epi Presidium: https://patentepi.com/en/epi-bodies/presidium.html
epi Professional Education Committee: https://patentepi.com/en/epi-bodies/epi-committees/professional-education-committee-pec/committee-members.html
The PEC also liaises with the Examination Board/Examination Committees on behalf of epi.
Absolutely shambolic this paper. Why can't the secretariat admit their mistake and lower the pass mark or change more of the 'controversial' claim analysis answers. We all know what they are.
ReplyDeleteCan we still call the secretariat to air our grievances? Or is it in the hands of the DBA. How can we speed up this process to get them to make it fair. Alot of people's careers are riding on this.
Jay
Send a letter to the Supervisory Board?
DeleteFile a formal compliant?
Ask your local epi representative to let the epi complain at the Examination Board, the Supervisory Board, the Administrative Council, the President
DonotLikeRoulette
Good idea. As many people should do this as possible.
DeleteWe must let the EPO know how terrible this pre-Eqe paper is.
The Examiner's report was update again (June 2018)
ReplyDeleteHow many time a candidate would spent in order to asses if five statement are True or False where they are neither True nor False!!
ReplyDeleteEven who answered right according to the first Examiner's report had it's examination affected.
Would the Exam Committee know that ambiguous or even bad questions take much much much much more time than unambiguous ones? To answer I mean. And as 800 candidates answer them, the extra time and effort of 10 Committee Members is absolutely neglegible!!! The exam design needs more care!!! 5 admitted wrong and still several debater in appeal: too much!!!
DeleteI updated the Blog Post with the pass rates after the broadly applied review in consequence of the interlocutory revision on 4.4, 5.3 and 13.1 in appeals. The pass rate increased by 3.8% as a result.
ReplyDeletePass rate after this is official EPO statistics and is at earlier levels: problem hidden. Risk it will be forgotten??!!
DeleteDonotLikeRoulette
I agree with ST. The added reasoning in Examiner’s Report on the opposite answers to 4.4 and 5.3 cannot be understood (I.e., makes no sense)! If anyone understands, can he/she explain? And can he/she also explain why the other 75 statements are unambiguous and cannot be scutinized with similar strange reasoning or farfetched arguments, or with even better arguments??? There was a big pool of arguments posted in comments to the claims analysis blog!
ReplyDeleteDonotLikeRoulette
The EPO should make further corrections and not stick to their 77% pass rate. They should be correcting bad mistakes and not worry about achieving pass rates of the past. This is not good and there are a few more answers that needs correcting by the DBA.
ReplyDelete14.3 and 18.4 needs to be corrected as well by DBA as they are very ambiguous. I will feel disgusted and cheated if these are not corrected now.
And what about the insufficient timing given to complete this paper. Needs to be adjusted especially for those within 65-70.
ReplyDeleteAny appeals still pending with the DBA and what questions?
ReplyDeleteEarlier comments mentioned that all of question 18 has been appealed. Is that still the case I. E. No withdrawal.
DeleteHas anyone else appealed question 14.3
No withdrawal of Appeal I meant.
DeleteI am disappointed... people collected info from the blog for writing their appeals, but now that we ask whether there are appeals towards the Appeal Board they do not inform us. Would have been polite and fair...
DeleteMrDisappointed
For normal appeals against decision from Examining Division or Opposition Division, yes: Art.109(2) EPC
ReplyDeleteBit nopt for EQE appeals: those are governed by the REE - there, it is 2 months from the notification of the decision (Art. 24(3) REE - http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/official-journal/2017/etc/se2/p2.html)
2 more questions at least needs to be corrected and broadly applied. Like everyone say these are 14.3 and 18.4
ReplyDeleteThe examiner's report does not mention the mistake in D1 (par [003], Fig. 1) and it seems that this is a mistake in the exam, leading to a complicated question (too complicated for a pre-exam). Quite some people may accidentally choose the right answer (according to the examiner's report), but other people may be adversely affected.
ReplyDeleteClearly with the error in D1, at least 11.2 should have been neutralized.
D 1/17 and D 2/17, also acknowledged in the (silently) updated Examiner’s Report of the 2017 Pre-exam with its statement 18.4 (unlucky number... again problematic this year...) ruled that an unclear statement violates the requirements for a True/False question and should thus be awarded full marks for both answers.
DeleteClearly this applies to 11.2 of this pre-exam as well, in view of the unclarity / error with D1.
By the way, isn’t it against rules of fair governance to change the Examiner’s Report in silence? The Exam Commitee does it repeatedly. Only in 2015 did they publish a separate addendum.
DeleteLikewise, should they not give full openende about which statements they consider neutralized for all candidates and which were sucessfully as well as unsuccessfully appealed -interlocutory revision or DBoA-, so all candidates and tutors can value the statements rightly?
I know last year some statements have been changed too by the BoA but just only for candidates who filed an opposition!!!
Delete18.4 - The question framed did not include common general knowledge of the skilled person and as a result it can easily be interpreted as a novelty assessment rather than inventive step. Again, this caused so much confusion. This question definitely needs correcting and the mistake is so much more obvious than 11.2. 14.3 is also a mistake.
ReplyDeleteFully agree. Can not imagine that the Disciplinary Board will not.
DeleteHow can we get the DBA to hurry their decision of the other unclear questions.
ReplyDeleteAll of you should have appealed, as I did. And asked for speedy treatment, as you could have found good practices in appeals of earlier years (on EPO case law web site via Search fields)
DeleteSupervisory Board should push too, or intervene themselves.
Take earlier appeals as examples, you can find them on the EPO case law pages: ask for acceleation in view of enrolment and preparation for the next year's EQE.
DeleteIf not in your appeal letter, send another letter with a request for acceleration.
If you did not appeal, donot complain, you rely on piggybacking which gives no rights.
Or, call the Exam Secretariat to inform when you get summons for oral proceedings and when the oral proceedings will be.
Good luck!
M.
If you did not request so in your appeal letter, you can send a reasoned request (acceleration to be able to timely know which exam to enrol to and prepare for).
DeleteIf you did not appeal, no possibility. And consider why you did not appeal if you now consider its outcome so relevant?!
By the way, only if you appealed you have the certainty that your marks will be corrected if your appeal was justified. That pass/fail decisions from others are also reviewed and rectified is an exception to the legal principle that a decision becomes final if not timely appealed - there is no legal basis in the REE or IPREE for doing that, so you are lucky if it happened to you.
This is about correcting what is right. Clearly the pre-Eqe analysis this year is very very poor and confusing. This should be corrected. It would.be good for everyone to write Exam sect, Supervisory board and DBoA (appeal or not). I know it has caused tremodous stress so let's make sure this is corrected for the benefit of everyone now and in the future.
DeleteWe should not get this type of paper again
I feel the DBoA must correct a few more claim analysis questions very quickly in time for main EQE.
ReplyDeleteOnly fair. I would feel cheated by them not changing it Coz it's so badly worded and so obvious that a few more questions (14.3,18.4 etc..) were not worded properly/errors in them.
Definitely in time for main EQE registration. DBoA need to sort it very soon. A few obvious questions that needs correcting so shouldnt take long to reach the right decision. 14.3 and 18. 4 especially.
DeleteNeed to get supervisory board and/DBoA to push these corrections quicker like anonymous said earlier.
ReplyDeleteAgree.
DeleteBut waiting for DBA should not have been necessary: Examination Board should also have neutralized 14.3 and 18.4. It is absolutely not possible to understand why 14.3 and 18.4 were maintained, while 4.4, 5.3 and 13.1 were neutralized.
Also, DBA wrote multiple times that if a question is not clear, it is an obvious and serious error - the Committee also recognizes that as they added D 1/17 to the Examiner's Report of Pre-Examination 2017 in an update of that Report. But despite that, Committee and Board still does not give benefit of the doubt to the candidates but to themselves. And even where there is no doubt, as in 14.3 and 18.4, they stick to their position as if it is a fight against the candidates. Learning organization? Fair?
It is a MUST that 14.3 and 18.4 (at least) should be corrected. The errors and confusion is so blatant in both of these questions that I struggle to understand why the Committee has not changed it. The DBoA has to change these answers.
DeleteThis pre-EQE is easily ranked the worse paper produced. it is right that the DBoA need to rectify these questions otherwise, there is no credibility or confidence in the exams and unfortunately the board.
J.A.M
Too many bad questions in the claim analysis. Time is a massive issue.
ReplyDeleteDBoA/supervisory board need to correct the obvious mistakes in questions (14.3 and 18.4).
Roel, do you have any opinions as to when DBoA would issue their decision/likely outcome given your experience over the past pre-EQE exams.
What is your opinion on this paper. I'm sure us candidates would like to know what the tutors make of this.
Time: true. Noone seems to mention ot anymore, everyone focusses on 14.3 and 18.4. But the lack of time made it a chance event rather than a fair test. One or more corrected statements do not change that. I never lost soo much time on any statement when I practiced the earlier exams. It cannot be the stress of sitting, I never did bad in exams. It was really the lack of quality of the exam as a whole.
DeleteI just about pass this one and I can say that the DBoA or supervisory board or even the Exam sec. really need to change a few more claim analysis questions particularly 14.3 and 18.4.
ReplyDeleteIt needs a correction for everyone to be confident in these exams otherwise, I'm afraid the trustworthy and integrity of this exam will forever be questioned.
For the sake of the profession, please correct what is wrong - 14.3 and 18.4 are the obvious ones to correct. Too confusing.
B
Could not agree more. More claim analysis questions needs neutralizing to regain integrity.
ReplyDeleteFor the sake of the profession!
Agree.
DeleteAnd the Quality Committee must interfere. If they an not act themselves, they must get the Supervisory Board to take corrective action. Still too many candidates failed that should not have failed and that would not have failed a well-drafted exam.
Is there a way of asking the Exam Sect. If they know a decision by DBoA is likely to be issued before closing of EQE registration. Does anyone have any relevant emails or telephone number?
ReplyDeleteVery hard to find on EPO website.
JS
Hi JS,
DeleteWhy so hard? It is on the EQE website, on the right: http://www.epo.org/learning-events/eqe.html
M.
Sadly I did not get any additional point from the changed statements, but I surely took much more time to find the answer for these statements, how many point I would have scored if I had not to answer to ambiguous statements??
ReplyDeleteYou mean of you had not lost time on those ambiguous statements?
DeleteI feel quite sure that I used more time on the badly phrased, neutralized and/or succesfully appealed statements than on the hardest well-phrased and unambiguous statements.
OK that exam is difficult but well designed. Not OK if the difficulty just arises from unambiguously phrased questions that have not been designed with the case one can expect for an exam that is sat by over 800 candidates!!!
M.
I agree, I meant I lost lot of time trying to answer correct. Sadly the changes did not brought to me more points.
DeleteStefano
Hi Stefano, It may be worth you contacting the Exam sect to see if the DBoA is considering further questions. As discussed in this blog, the DBoA may overthrow some more questions especially 14.3 and 18.4.
DeleteYou can always ask the EPO. Worth a try
KJ
It is difficult and puzzling to understand why the Exam committee did not overturn 14.3 and 18.4, and possibly 11.2. The DBoA must rectify these questions now. Time was a big big factor in this exam so I trust they will do the right thing - and the DBoA need to act quickly.
ReplyDeleteIt seems we have a Pre-exam "gate" this year.
ReplyDeletehttp://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2018/03/controversy-looming-for-this-years-pre.html
They have to lower the marks. Impossible to answer the claim analysis questions!
DeleteComplex and confusion
Has anyone managed to find out if there are any appeals
ReplyDeleteIs there nobody with a pending appeal?
DeleteIs there nobody with an appeal that was succesful on other statements than 4.4, 5.3 and 13.1?
Would be surprising in view of the vast amount of discussion and emotion expressed by some of you!
Please share to the benefit of everyone!
M.
Hello Roel - Looking forward to the EPI Tutor's report especially on pre-EQE 2018 which is frankly the worse produced paper set by the EPO. Lets see who the people who sat the exam can explain the terrible mis-management of producing this paper.
ReplyDeleteEveryone is aware that the pre-EQE 2018 paper is terrible - it cannot be sufficiently completed in time, the questions were far too unclear and the claim analysis has a difficulty level that qualified attorneys struggled to do within the given time-frame. Not realistic but the most important thing is that they do NOT repeat the mistakes of this paper for future paper. Roel, can you confirm that there was concerns/discussions on these aspects?
AJ
Hello AJ,
DeleteConcerns, discussions and critical questions were surely raised. The Pre-Exam committee commented to these with the following (will be included in the Tutor's report in epi Information):
"General remarks (Stefan Kastel)
The 2018 pass-rate was stated by the Committee to be 80%.
The Committee reiterated that the Pre-Exam is aimed at basic knowledge. To illustrate this point, the Pre-Exam should be answerable by Committee members in a closed-book setting in two hours (rather than the four hours given to candidates). Statements are only considered for inclusion in the final exam if 80% of Committee members provides the correct answer.
Nevertheless, the Committee recognizes that, despite the elaborate testing of statements, some statements are considered as ambiguous by candidates. Feedback, e.g., by tutors, is appreciated, as the Committee continues to strive to avoid ambiguities in the statements.
There is no recommendation from the Committee on how a candidate should distribute his/her time between the legal and claims-analysis part. However, the Pre-Exam is designed and tested to be ‘doable’ as a whole within the available four hours.
Some candidates appear to use personal answer sheets or write answers on the exam paper itself, and only transcribe their answers on the official answer sheet in the last minutes.
- Candidates often fail to do so on time, or make mistakes in filling in the answer sheet.
- In view of this, the Committee recommends against using personal answer sheets
- Nevertheless, in consideration of this problem, the end of the paper will be announced 10 minutes before the closing signal (previously 5 minutes before) to give candidates more time to fill in the answer sheet. This only applies to the Pre-Exam, not to the Main Exam.
The Committee considers the effect of the Pre-Exam on the preparation of the candidates for the Main Exam difficult to assess, as this would require two groups (double blind testing). However, the Committee is open to feedback, e.g., on improvements or perhaps reform."
Note: the official statistics show 73,69%. The initial Pre-Exam results showed a pass rate of about 70% where two statements were neutralized (12.2 and 12.4; see Examiners’ Report of 22 March 2018); the statistics on the EQE webpages seem to reflect the pass rate after interlocutory revision, where three more statements were neutralized for all candidates (4.4, 5.3, 13.1; see examiners’ report of June 2018). It is not known whether some appeals have led to neutralizing answers for a specific candidate only; nor whether there are still any pending appeals on other statements)
"Legal part (Stefan Götsch)
DeleteThis year’s Pre-Exam had legal questions directed to allowability of amendments (Q.1), missing drawings (Q.2, EPC), opposition/ priority / fresh grounds (Q.3), R.71(3) communication with amendments by the examining division / late third party observations (Q.4), EP entry just before the 31m time limit, i.e., early entry (Q.5), translation for entry / representation on entry (Q.6), infringement/ rights conferred / national renewals (Q.7), R.161/162 requirements after entry / amended R.164 (Q.8), appeal / pendency / interlocutory revision (Q.9), and oral proceedings/ written submissions (Q.10).
Questions 1, 2, 4-8 and 10 were generally well answered
Question 3 showed that some candidates had difficulties in determining the ground for opposition.
Question 7 contained two general statements of which the answer was not in the Syllabus per se (statements 7.2 and 7.3, which read “The patent proprietor is entitled under all circumstances to produce in Germany any matter that is covered by the claim of EP-X” and “The patent proprietor is entitled under all circumstances to sell in Italy any matter that is covered by the claim of EP-X.” where EP-X was validated in Germany and Italy) but was nevertheless thought to represent basic knowledge, namely which tested that a patent is not a right to use but a right to exclude.
Question 9 showed that some candidates had difficulties with statements involving interlocutory revision."
"Claims analysis part (Julia Mills)
DeleteIn the claims analysis part, the client’s patent application related to jugs or filter carriers for mounting on jugs with replaceable filter cartridges for filtering water. In such jugs or filter carriers the filtering capacity of the cartridges is subject to exhaustion, and therefore the cartridges must be replaced after a certain number of filtering cycles and/or after a predetermined period of activity of the cartridge.
General
The claims analysis part is designed to be relevant for Paper A and B but with ‘black & white’ questions. Scope questions are thought to be relevant for preparation for Paper A. Novelty questions are thought to be relevant for preparation for Papers A and B.
Statements on inventive step were considered to be difficult to phrase in ‘black & white’ but seen as particularly relevant for the preparation of the candidates for paper B. In consideration of the choice of closest prior art document often being arguable, the questions are designed not to directly ask which document is closest prior art.
There are no tricks in the claims analysis part; the Committee is not ‘trying to be clever’. Candidates should try not to overthink the questions of the claims analysis part. However, there are also no trivial questions. It is seen as an ongoing challenge to design questions and statements which are answerable without ambiguity, as there are always different opinions.
In general, it is attempted to derive the wording of the statements from parts of the Guidelines so to be recognizable to candidates familiar with the Guidelines.
2018 paper
The 2018 Pre-Exam paper is thought to contain technically easy subject matter.
Regarding the prior art: D2 was functionally similar, but structurally different, and introduced in the paper as a relevant document for scope and novelty questions. D3 was functionally similar, but has a different purpose/field, and was introduced as relevant document for inventive step assessment. D4 also introduced for inventive step.
The first questions were expected to be easy. It was therefore surprising to Committee that this part contained statements to be ‘neutralized’, i.e. both answers counted as correct.
In response to a tutor’s question on the phrasing of statement 12.2 (“Claim II.1 is in the correct two-part form with respect to the third embodiment of document D1”): this was considered to be a useful way of asking about what features a document contained and which it did not.
In response to a tutor’s question on the phrasing of 18.4 (“For the assessment of inventive step of claim V.2 it is a valid argument that none of the documents D1, D2 or D3 disclose a water level detector”): the phrasing “a valid argument’ merely refers to the reason being correct and relevant (“worthwhile”). Nothing else was intended by the phrasing, i.e., it does not need to be the most complete or only argument."
thanks for the very detailed feedback Roel. It seems the claim analysis part proved to be the most difficult bit. Yes, in principle, the topics are straight forward but the problem is 1. the phrasing of the questions which are totally confusing which is very off putting. There are several questions in the claim analysis section 2. the time and amount of material to go through the claim analysis material. there are far too many claims to analysed compared to previous years. 3. confusing questions does affect time and confidence during the exam.
ReplyDeleteIf you add all those issues up, the claim analysis was not fairly assessed and I think the Committee has missed a point here. Its not the topics of the questions that is in doubt but the way the questions were conveyed coupled with the lack of sufficient time.
It would be great to know if the Committee would consider scaling down the amount of material for claim analysis and make sure they have a bigger pool to test ambiguous questions.
AJ
Agree!
DeleteThe pool should however not just be bigger in my view: it shoukld also becomposed of, or at least comprise, people that represent true candidates having 2 years of experience - that is the target group!
Also, it should not be accepted that a question is good if 20% of experience Commkittee Member go wrong!!!
J.
I'm not sure why the Committee state that candidates should not read into claim analysis questions deeply. If the question is deeply flawed in the first place, it will cause candidates to go digging. The main issue here is that subject matter i.e. jug and filter introduced too many variables and is not appropriate to be tested in the first place.
ReplyDeleteGandon
Hi Gandon,
DeleteI agree. Can the Committee please define "not read into the claims analysis too deeply"? The implicitly admit that if you think deeper, some answers may change to the opposite. That is not what Rule 22(3) IPREE promises: all faxts are there, soo it should not matter how deep you think!
J.
Also don't agree with their reasoning on 18.4. Its a bit weak. On first impressions, this questions is phrased like a novelty argument not inventive step. So surely the Committee would agree that this question is a bit confusing??? without over analysing the statement.
ReplyDeleteCommittee are surprised by the claim analysis questions having to be neuturalised. I'm not, they are rubbish - which makes this year paper totally difficult for what it was designed for.
ReplyDeleteAgree that the subject matter was perhaps not most appropriate as there are far too many features to consider with too many variables.
I agree. But the good news is that the Committee seems more willing than before to neutraize badly drafted statements than in earlier years! And so try to compensate for the damage done by a paper that was too long and too complex in terms of number of technical features - with the embodiment of Fig. 1 of D1 even contradictory in itself!
DeleteJ.
If they are really serious about reform - 1. Reduce timings on pre-EQE. 4 hours this for 2018 was not enough. Nothing was mentioned on timing of claim analysis which when you look at candidate feedback, almost all said that they ran out of time.
ReplyDelete2. scrap the claim analysis part. What good does it make if you can answer T/F in pre-EQE. I don't see how this would help you write a novelty or inventive step arguments in main exam or draft a set of claims for a client. In fact, drafting and amendments are "on the job" type work and it would be better to go through a coursework type assessment.
totally in favour that claim analysis should not be in T/F. Not sure about coursework. Why not just stick to the main exams.
DeleteJ
T/F format does not work for claim analysis, especially this year. Very surprising that the Committee thought they were easy.
Deletemaybe the reason why claim analysis was difficult this year was the sheer volume of material to go through. Jug and filter subject matter is probably not the most relevant subject to pick for T/F. The way it was designed meant that there were far too many "thinking outside the box". Most answers should be in the description - not sure what they wanted to test for on the claim analysis this year. Everyone ran out of time.
ReplyDeleteExam Committee or board should consider the way the exams are marked. I think if you get 80% of answers correct, you can still fail. The marking system is quite unfair.
ReplyDeleteI donot agree with you JAM. I think the marking scheme 5/3/1/0/0/ for 4/3/2/1/0 correct is fair of one considers that statistically one gets close to 30 marks for just guessing. But.... the marking should be in the benefit of the doubts of the candidates if a statement if not fully correct, and that is not the case! Roel quoited from the report that "Statements are only considered for inclusion in the final exam if 80% of Committee members provides the correct answer.", but it should be thatg ALL give the correct answer, if not directly then certainly after a quick feedback (to correct for accidental errors by the Committee members that were testing the exam). It cannot be true that the Pre-Exam Commitee, the Quality Committte, the EXam Coimmittee and the Supervisory Board accept questions where 20% of Committee Members go wrong!!!
DeleteJ.
But disappointing to see that the Committee did not really appreciate, acknowledge or understood the difficulty of the claim analysis this year. It was not fit for purpose in terms of timing, questions posed or dubiousness of the questions - whether you pass or not, we all think the claim analysis questions were not suitable for a pre-EQE candidate.
ReplyDeleteAre there still any more appeals?
Fully agree!
DeleteDid the Committee or the Examination Board comment at the meeting as to whether there are any more appeals? Did the Committee or the Examination Board comment at the meeting as to whether there are any succesul interlocutory decisions to other statements than the ones referred to in the updated Examiner's Report (4.4, 5.3, 13.1), e.g. 18.4 which is clearly not good enough as it ignores the effect of common general knowledge, and several others where exotic reasonings could have made the answers flip (which the Committee or Board accepted for 4.4 and 5.3 - thr reasonining giventhere for neutrlaizing the statements does not make any sense when considering the context of the questions nor any reasonable further interpretation thereof (as some others, I must admit that I only checked the English versions of the questions and of the Exanminer's Report...)
It would be very helpful for me as a candidate and for any tutor or supervisor to understand whether the Exam Committee kmnows and wants to admit that there were wrong with this claims part, or whether the 2018 exam is typical for the future - with respect to the exam and with respect to the non-willingness of the Pre-Exam Committee to admit that they made a serious misjudgment in its design (incl lack of consisntency in difficulty and style compared to earlier exams).
J.
It is a bit shocking that they have to correct 5 questions (with a few more questions raised by the tutors) and yet still proceeded to provide such terrible statements such as "we think the exam questions contain easy subject matter". Look at the feedback to the EPO - well over 98% of candidates struggle with the questions and timings on this year's paper.
DeleteCompletely disregard student's hard work and dedication to the profession. Some were not allowed to continue with EQE training after this exam, effectively losing their jobs. Some had no pay rises as we all know this profession is HEAVILY RELIANT ON EXAM PROGRESS for pay rises.
Its not good enough for the committee to sweep the claim analysis part this year under the carpet. More action is required. Why and what about other candidates who ran out of time because of the poor questioning.
Nia
Link to survey by students for pre-EQE to prove my point.
Deletehttps://www.epo.org/learning-events/eqe.html
Nia
As a qualified attorney, I must say that I'm disappointed with the reasoning given by the Committee. pre-EQE exams in my opinion should not exist but the 2018 claim analysis went well beyond what should be tested. I still do not understand the lack of time given to candidates - which the committee did not address. Yes, they had some well qualified attorneys who can do these questions but they probably sit this every year with no pressure of needing to pass these exams to progress. Its very different having pressure vs not having pressure when sitting exams.
DeleteI think the claim analysis 2018 will go down as one of the worse produced paper ever. It should not stand in my opinion and it would be better off lowering the marks for it. At least, do not repeat these in 2019 and beyond - give candidates more time by reducing the content of claim analysis.
W.M.
Just lower the pass mark back to 50%. pre-EQE "should be" about testing for basic knowledge, if so, why the high level and huge difficulty this year - mainly due to the amount of material to go through for the claim analysis. Reduce volume of material for claim analysis! It should not be to the wire.
ReplyDeleteDoes not help that the Pre-Exam Committee said that "It is seen as an ongoing challenge to design questions and statements which are answerable without ambiguity, as there are always different opinions." Whether possible or not, the Committee has the TASK to make a True/False exam, in an UNAMBIGUOUS statements, and well doable within 4 hours. If not, the Committee should refuse to design such an exam and let the Supervirsory Board design a better system.
ReplyDeleteIf the Committeee makes an exam wioth 80 T/F statements, and decisdes in a completely arbitrary manner which to "neutralize" after the exam, it becomes a gamble!! No possible way of neutralization can compensate candidates for loosing too much time and confidence by trying to solve badly designed questions. Candidates have the right to expect a well-designed exam.
Another thinh that surpirses me: pre-exam committee said 80% pass rate. But it was initially approx 70% and the statistics on the EQE website showed about 75T%. What is the extra 5%? Some appeals noone knows about?
J.
I hope the tutors who were present at the meeting gave the Committee a very hard time with the claim analysis section of the paper.
ReplyDeleteW.M
I'm sure that the tutors did. thanks Roel for providing such detailed statements from the meeting.
DeleteI'm curious - were there are 2 claim analysis questions that were asked by the tutors present at this meeting. There are so many more that I can think of that requires some explanation from the Committee.
What does Delta Patent thinks about the claim analysis feedback from the Committee. I gather that the 2018 paper is deeply unpopular and unfair to many candidates who sat it, including the extensive debate on your blog.
Many critical questuins were submitted in response to an invitation by the Academy prior to the meeting. They were also all distributed by the Adacemy. Many were not answered as I understood from a colleague who was told so by a tutor that was present. To me it appears that the Committee does not want to take a position, thereby leaving candidate without any clue on future exams... why? A pity... If the Committee values the meeting as they say they do, I would expect them to be as open and vulnerable as all candidates and turtors that share their view, is it not? At least they shiuld have admitted it was too long, and it was a misjudgement thatthey should it was ok, is it not? The Committee is tio serve the interest of candidates, not of their own, is it not?
DeleteMarc
Not sure why the Committee cannot let us know if there are anymore pending appeals.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the Committee hasn't even address what it plans to do to make sure there is sufficient times for pre-EQE exams thereafter to be completed in time.
The Committee needs to do more to remove ambiguous questions.
Having a group of qualified attorney with no pressure and many years of experience in doing these exam year after year is NOT the same as those candidates with massive pressure and fresh into the profession.
Ed
Not sure why the Committee cannot let us know if there are anymore pending appeals.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the Committee hasn't even address what it plans to do to make sure there is sufficient times for pre-EQE exams thereafter to be completed in time.
The Committee needs to do more to remove ambiguous questions.
Having a group of qualified attorney with no pressure and many years of experience in doing these exam year after year is NOT the same as those candidates with massive pressure and fresh into the profession.
Ed
10 months on from the pre-EQE exam and people are still talking about the 2018 paper. This paper really is controversial. There has been extensive blogs on other IP websites such as IPKAT, which is also heavily critical of the pre-EQE 2018 especially claim analysis. I think the Committee has a lot of convincing and correction to do for the 2019 paper. The Committee needs to remember that the pre-EQE exam is designed NOT to be a main paper - so don't create a difficulty level comparable to a main paper exam.
ReplyDeleteThere was a reaction to the 2015 but not like this, and the committee seem so unconvincing with this year's paper too.
I agree. The exam comittee seems to deny that the paper was controversial. The committee seems to ignore any critisism... but at the same time, they neutralize statements that are fully unambiguous (4.4 ande 5.3). What us going on? Which forces drive what happens? Please please please let fairness return and give us a well-designed pre-exam 2019 where any ambiguities are dealt with with fairness and with the benefit of the doubt on the candidates. The committee cannot be blamed for not being perfect, no human being or group of human being is.... but they can be blamed for not admitting imperfections or even errors! (Just my humble opinion; please correct me in case I am wrong)
DeleteMarc
I agree that designing questions are hard, but at the same time - alot depends on it. They also had 2/3 years to design the questions.
ReplyDeleteI really do not know why the Committee does not want to address the failures of the claim analysis. If many tutors have submitted questions, comments and concerns - the Committee should at least provide their side of the story and not ignore the concerns. A particular concern is the time given.
I just hope for those who will take the 2019 paper that it will NOT be a repeated mess and shambles.
Normally, I would defend the Committee or the paper if its hard but fair. For the pre-EQE 2018 claim anaylsis, I cannot provide a defence for it.
ReplyDeleteAre Deltapatent team happy to share what questions, comments and concerns they submitted to the Committee. It just seems odd that the Committee hasn't really address much at all in their report, especially as there are several questions, 18.4 included, that should be discussed (and in the case of 18.4 - neturalised in my view).
I have asked the Academy to make their compilation of all questions asked by the participants to the Committees available via the Academy webpages.
DeleteDear Roel,
ReplyDeleteI feel a bit uncomfortable of your comment "It is not known whether some appeals have led to neutralizing answers for a specific candidate only; nor whether there are still any pending appeals on other statements)", no offence to you.
How some appeals have lead to neutralizing answers for "A SPECIFIC CANDIDATE ONLY"???
Pre-EQE is made up of multiple-choice type. There is always fixed answers (T or F or Both).
If the BoA decides that some answers are neutralized, should the neutralized answer be applied to everyone, not only for a specific person??? Actually, I've never heard this kind of system before to the multiple-choices. If only a specific person's answer was neutralized, how could we argue about this matter?
Thank you in advance.
Best Regards,
YJ
In principle, every individual exam pass/fail decision is an individual decision. If the decision is not appealed by the respective candidate, it -under the normal principles of law- becomes final at the end of the appeal period if no appeal is filed. Thus, that an appeal is succesful for one candodate appealing his/her EQE decision, should not/ does not have impact on other decisions, especially not on others not appealed. Luckily, the Examination Board deviates from this general principle in a way that is advantageous to the candidates, as they revise the marking also after the appeal period of they consider that appropriate - esp. after a succesful decision from a pre-exam candidate. It has however not been indicated whether they do this for every succesfully appealed pre-exam statement. With no explicit confirmation and no explicit example to the contrary, and at the same time the strong discussions in comments to our blogs w.r.t. several statements that were not (as far as known) neutralized (not appealed, not succesfully appealed, or appealed but not widely neutrlized but only for the specific candidate that appealed that statement?), the question did arise whether there were any individually succesful appeals.
DeleteDoes that answer your question?
Hello Roel. I plan to do the pre eqe 2019 but im very worried by the pre eqe exams. Last year seems very difficult and judging from this blog, it is not a good paper. Have u been noticing the pre eqe getting harder and if so was this raised at your meeting. I thought the idea of a pre eqe is just to get candidates more prepared and only test on basics but it does not seem to be the case this year, especially the claim analysis part.
ReplyDeleteKarl
Also did the committee mention anything about the pre eqe 2019 and would they address the concerns of the pre eqe 2018 claim analysis section for the 2019 paper.
DeleteKarl
The committee did not explicitly comment on how pr-exam 2019 will compare to the earlier ones.
DeleteMy personal view is that the pre-exams of 2015-2016-2017 were quite similar in terms of level of difficulty, legal part as well as claims part. They also had similar pass rates (75-78%). The 2018 exam was similar for the legal part (maybe slightly less difficult), but the claims part was more difficult in view of its length as a whole and in view of the detail level of all claims and all embodiments -- this led many candidates into time trouble, associated feelings of uncertainty and confusement, and to an initially lower pass rate (before appeals). The committee indicated -see report- that the claims part is terribly difficult to design in its True/false format, which suggests that they did not plan it to be more difficult and/or time consuming. Last year, the committee indicted at the meeting that they were happy with the consistent pass rate of the years before, and the consistent difficulty level. The committee also indicated that they have read the blogs and other feedback, so they have seen that it turned out differently than (what was presumably) planned. So, enough indications for me to be confident that the 2019 exam will be more similar to 2016-2017 than 2018... let's hope that that will indeed be the case!
Good luck with your further preparation!
NB: by the way, better be safe than sorry and make sure to get 45 or more marks from the legal part to get some buffer, that is very well possible if you prepare well. And if you are afraid to over-prepare... donot worry, any minute spent now on legal prep is already a further step-on to D the year hereafter. (But even when prepared very well, you will need to study again seriously the year herafter for the higher kmowledge level needed for D, especially as D 2020 will have relatively more DI than in the past -- see the D-report)
I think the difficult for pre-EQE 2018 claim anaylsis should be scaled down. What I mean is the number of embodiments that needed to be analysis and the amount of different claims set. It is far too many embodiments/claims for students to look at within the time period so I hope the EPO take this on barod.
DeleteIt shouldn't be repeated!
GAT
thank you. I've started revision early but and I was happy with the level of the legal questions - a few tricky ones but it is to be expected. Do you have any tips for the legal parts i.e. what topics we should cover well?
ReplyDeleteThe claim analysis section for 2018 really did threw me off course in practice - I found it very very difficult and I do alot of mechanical work as well so I have no idea how the non-mechanical people felt about this paper. Hence, I decided to look at this blog and found out it wasn't just me.
I hope the committee really tries to make the claim analysis reasonable next year. Alot of nervous students at the moment. I also found it very long and guessed that the last few questions. I think the confusion in the early parts of the claim analysis did not help. Thank you for your helpful comments.
Karl
Dear Roel and EPO tutors,
DeletePlease can you help me with a fundamental just this once. If an embodiment in the specification discloses features A, B e.g. a first spring requires a greater activation force than a second spring.
Embodiment X in the specification discloses a first spring and a second spring but there is no disclosure that the first spring requires greater activation force than the second spring.
Would embodiment X still fall under the scope of the claim?
When analysing these types of questions, do we only require to look at whether the "physical" features fall within the scope of the claims or would the "function" of the physical features be important too.
Karl
See chapter on Functional features in the Guidelines. As well as chapter on relative terms.
DeleteGuidelines F-IV extentively discusses claim formats, claim terms, claim structures and the effect on clarity, incl. definition and/or limition of the claim scope.
Roel - thank you very much for the useful advice.
DeleteKarl
If the Committee has indicated that it is very difficult to create a T/F format for the claim analysis part of the pre-EQE, why on earth are they still doing it then. Makes no sense to me.
ReplyDeleteA
The claim analysis section of the pre-EQE is a complete joke. The earlier years were ok because it tested principles. The questions in later years are so unrealistic and nonsense that the EPO has to keep back-tracking i.e. changing their answers or provide neutralised answers. It gives us NO information whatsoever as the effectiveness or usefulness of the claim analysis. Why make the claim analysis part so difficult and confusing. It should be straight forward.
DeleteI find it shameful and regrettable that the EPO makes no attempt to 1. acknowledge that the pre-EQE claim analysis 2018 is not fit for purpose 2. acknowledge that there was a timing issue for the pre-EQE 2018 and 3. provide assurances that future papers will provide adequate time and claim analysis format to be in line with other years apart from 2018.
DeleteThe committee has failed to reassure or acknowledge anything.
Does anyone know when they are going to release the calendar for 2019 exams, just like in previous years.
ReplyDeleteKarl
They are available now via links on the EQE webpage (https://www.epo.org/learning-events/eqe.html):
DeletePre-Exam: http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/4177da9a2a79e7ddc125837f004100d9/$FILE/PreEx_2019_en_Calendar.pdf (2018-2019)
Paper D: http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/4177da9a2a79e7ddc125837f004100d9/$FILE/Paper_D_2019_Calendar_EN.pdf (2017-2019)
Calendars are in the same format as the previous years. Normal weekends and national holidays are shown; no bridging dates. Use the calendars provided with the paper at the EQE, not the closure dates given in the OJ EPO!
A group of us who are sitting pre-EQE 2019 have done the pre-2018 paper as a mock. Only 1 out 5 passed pre-EQE 2018 and although it is a mock paper, we all passed the other previous papers. We are so worried by the increased level of difficult especially for the claim analysis + time provided. Having looked at the paper, we can see that there were 5 corrections. Some of the answers are confusing but we can go through it.
ReplyDeleteHowever, we are generally worried by the difficulty of pre-EQE 2018 claim analysis. Someone suggested to me to go on this blog. Has anyone also experienced this?
Would this represent a significant shift of difficulty for future papers. We were surprised by some of the questions e.g. inter-related products is new and inventive step questions were alot harder. Even the "straight forward" embodiment and novelty questions appear to be much more difficult.
Any suggestions would be helpful.
Tom K
I did the same the paper and felt completely awful. It was very difficult and I was so pushed for time I didn't finish.
ReplyDeleteI'm very worried about it. The attorneys at my firm didn't think the claim analysis was good and it is a bit comforting that they found it difficult too. And they have 5-10 years post EQE experience.
2016 and 2017 were also hard btw but not as bad as 2018. It seems like they stepped it up another level which is completely unfair. Starting to become more like a EQE paper.
ReplyDelete2018 seems particularly hard but like Roel said - we are hoping that it would be more reasonable and that the content will be similar to 2015, 2016 and 2017. If the paper is like 2018 again, I think there will be a problem for the Exam committee.
ReplyDeleteJE
Is my impression correct that the exam committee has become more willing to neutralize statements now than they were for the exams up to and including 2015? They now neutralize statements immediately (after statistics per statement? after public comments on blog like this one?) as well as with interlocutory revision after appeals? Does any appeal move forward to the DBA or are they all handled immediately and fully by the committee, within the 2m from the decicion to grant interlocutory revision? Does anyone have information on how many appeals were filed leading to succesful interlocutory revision, and how many not? I noted that some statements were heavily debated and critized with good arguments but did not get neutralized, such as 11.2 and 18.4, some statements were not neutralized although consistency with others would have required so (5.4 in view of 5.3), whereas some statements were neutralized based on poor arguments (as least as can be concluded from the updated examiner's report, 4.4, 5.3 and 13.1).
ReplyDeleteI noted some of the neutralizations were to statements that were tested in almost the same wording in earlier years, but they did not get neutralized then.
It would be useful for candidates studying for next years exams if the committee could update the old examiner's reports while using the same level of lenience as they did now.
I think the reason why you are seeing more neutralised answers is because the recent papers, especially the claim analysis, has become far too difficult and confusing to be completed within the time limit.
DeleteI think it is clear the claim analysis section of the pre-EQE exam does not work in the T/F format. The Examiner has made it too hard over the past few years and like everything, this really does depend on how the candidate would interpret the answers and the description.
ReplyDeleteIn the real world, you advice to client would be based on reasoning and if there are uncertainty, this is where the Opposition, BoA, EBoA, Legal division etc... carry out their job.
It is wholly unrealistic to expect candidates to answer T/F for claim analysis especially last year where there are so many variables. Either make the claim analysis more straight forward, testing basics topic or get rid of it. It doesn't help the candidate for the main EQE and certainly does not help an attorney in their everyday profession.
There is a growing sense amongst the trainees that the pre-EQE is becoming harsh and difficult (in terms of question difficulty, time of exam allowed and ambiguous questions) which is unfair as those candidates in early pre-EQE years had much less trouble.
ReplyDeleteNot just trainees, qualified patent attorney also find the pre-EQE 2018 completely unjustified and against the good faith of what we were told pre-EQE was intended to be - which is to allow trainees to prepare for the main exam - not become a EQE paper in itself.
DeleteJust did the pre-EQE 2018 and the claim analysis section was ridiculously hard. Also completely ran out of time.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have any useful tips for dealing with claim analysis. The amount of embodiments and figures eventually confused me completely. Is there a system that people have employed. Does Delta Patents have any tips and advice that they are happy to share to cope with several embodiments.
Oli H
The 2018 was much more involve then the earlier ones.
DeleteIf you start to read the client's application and the prior art, and then try to remember it all and/or put it all in comparison matrices, you will run out of time by far and be completely confused.
We recommend to not immediately read it all in detail, but to first quickly browse through (diagonal reading). Then read the first statements and the related claims, and then read those parts that are needed to answer the statements in detail (e.g., claim I.1, embodiment 2 of D1 for the first statement; claim I.II, embodiment 1 of D2 for the second statement, etc). That way, you always only read what you know you will need to answer the statement - and a goal-oriented reading can be very efficient if you practiced it.
But: when the paper is long, the claims are long with many features, there are many prior art embodiments also with man features, and there are many different claims & claim sets, it is even a tough job with an efficient method.
And...: accept that here are always a few statements in the claims part that you cannot solve, "simply" because you do not spot the relevant information. Build headroom from the legal part: 40-45 marks or more from the legal part is achievable for well-prepared candidates, which allows some more missed statements in the claims analysis part.
Good luck!
@Roel. Thank you for your helpful advice. How much time would you recommend to spend quickly "browsing" through the description.
ReplyDeleteOli H