Fireball Patents

EQE: 14 Mar 2023 – B Exam – no copy (sorry) and my comments

EQE: 14 Mar 2023 – B Exam – no copy (sorry) and my comments

Tuesday was the e-EQE B Exam (0930-1300 CET – 210 mins). Sorry, I do not have a copy available (I was not a benchmarker), but please post any comments you have. The EPO normally makes official copies of the exams available in the compendium in the week after the EQE.

I heard from many people that it was a lot of subject-matter to get through, similar to the old exams where you had to figure out the amendments yourself. If you need too much time to decide on your amendments on B, it becomes very difficult to pass because most of the marks are for argumentation (support, novelty, inventive step).

  • The problems in B are made worse by the difficulties in WISEflow of comparing on-screen claims as filed with the description as filed, and comparing on–screen amendments with the claims/application as filed.
  • And the problems in current B exams are made even worse by the very high time pressure. When the PE was introduced, the B-exam was reduced in 2013 by 30 minutes by providing a claim set from the client. This can only save time if it is almost exactly the direction to go in. The standard advice from tutors used to be (in 2013 – 2019) was not to think too much and just follow this direction, clearing up clarity and extension issues, and writing out the argumentation.
  • Since 2021, the B committee has gone back (unannounced) to the old-style (< 2013) of B-exam, requiring a more thorough interpretation often deviating from the clients proposal, but without giving the 30 minutes back. So, more technical understanding is needed to figure out the amendments, but you have no time to think, and definitely no time to correct your answer. You have one-shot to pass.
The basic principle of A and B as negative mark exams is a fundamentally flawed principle, which can lead to an enhanced loss of marks. The Disciplinary Board has also commented on this. You start with 100 marks, and lose marks for every mistake. That means that they have to anticipate all expected mistakes during exam drafting, and either added additional comments in the exam to point you away from them, or provide a route to keep getting marks after making mistakes. Unfortunately, with the combined technology exams, it is even more difficult to predict what 1000 candidates will do. What you are often missing with an unexpected solution are similar features in the prior art for the novelty & inventive step defence, and you are often missing a clear technical effect associated with your distinguishing features.
  • Because of the time pressure, there is no time to rewrite your answer or to change your mind. The only guidance you have is that if you find the supporting words / phrases for amendments, and you have a technical effect, then you are probably on the right path. 

EQE guru

, , ,

17 responses to “EQE: 14 Mar 2023 – B Exam – no copy (sorry) and my comments”

  1. Beep Avatar
    Beep

    That was hard for me but maybe easy for candidates in the chemical field. I am frustrated, paper B was always my strongest part in the preparations. I don‘t know if my approach was right. I limited both ranges to 30-45 and 0,4-06 um. Didn‘t expect such paper.

    Reply
  2. Anka Avatar
    Anka

    For me paper B was strange, the second document was art 54(3) so no long argumentation for inventive step would be forseen, what also means less points for such argumentation in comparison to previous exams. I went into undisclosed disclaimer option and still find it quite Broad and overall „good” for client. The options with sub ranges (as in delta solution) also make some sense to me, but at the same time they discuss lack of „opening” in D2. This is difficult for me to agree with, because it means that the examiner was wrong. Although examiner being wrong happens in real life, up to my best knowledge it was not a case in previous B papers. In the end you could rely that examiner is right. Also similar situation was with second indendent claim. I think that device and strop are not interrelated products and amended to method, but it is against client wishes. I hope that the examiners will allow both undisclosed disclaimer and subranges. I found it difficult to write all arguments in given time, although it were only two documents. Probably I was thinking about claim 1 too long :/

    Reply
  3. Pete Pollard Avatar
    Pete Pollard

    Yes – the technical interpretation of the examiner is normally correct and candidates are usually advised not to argue against it.

    Reply
  4. Pete Pollard Avatar
    Pete Pollard

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    Reply
  5. Pete Pollard Avatar
    Pete Pollard

    Having talked with candidates from EQE2023 who are seeing the bar raised significantly for passing A, B and C in the WISEflow format, I withdraw my support for the attached changes to the syllabus by the epi. It makes no sense to discuss this when the A, B and C committees have the complete freedom to ignore their own guidelines and ignore the WISEflow limitations in place since 2021. A & B are minor exams that anyone with 2 years of experience should pass with max. 2 attempts. C should also be possible with more experience and max. 2 attempts.No employer is going to pay for someone to spend 4-6 years trying to qualify 1x per year while fighting random technical issues, unannounced changes in format & content, technology "mood swings" and bloated exams.This is killing the EPA profession, and effectively shutting out non-native speakers from qualifying at all.Please switch to the multiple-choice format originally proposed by the European Patent Office as soon as possible, similar to the Pre-Exam, but for all elements. This is hopeless and it is getting worse.

    Reply
  6. Pete Pollard Avatar
    Pete Pollard

    Proposed changes to EQE by epi

    Reply
  7. Lukas Dreveny (copied from LI) Avatar
    Lukas Dreveny (copied from LI)

    Thanks for the contribution and support of us, non-native speakers. I wonder what the last drop was ?

    Reply
  8. Pete Pollard Avatar
    Pete Pollard

    It takes the committee about 2 years to complete an exam, so these were all made from the start with the full knowledge of the limitations of WISEflow and that they must use combined technologies for AB. And all 3 exams ABC were more difficult than last year. I think D was within the normal boundaries, although D2 was maybe a bit long.The last drop was probably C – there was not even an attempt to reduce the reading in C-1.They had 2 years to do it. And they are ruining so many careers of good candidates who are completely fit-to-practice, but cannot do the trick correctly on the 1 day per year that they need to perform. It used to be that only C was like that, but A and B clearly have ambitions to become like C, with a different trick needed each year.I worry that it is going to end up like in C 2007 (pass rate 15% before correction) when the ex-chairperson of the C committee said that candidates could not pass their perfect C exam, should choose a different career.

    Reply
  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yes, this is also what is taught in methodology courses

    Reply
  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Thanks for the discussion. The online format has many pros and cons. But why not simply going back to the pre-corona time, and have again all exams on paper. Corona is politically ignored, Oktoberfest is back, so why not EQE 2025 again in good old MOC?

    Reply
  11. Pete Pollard Avatar
    Pete Pollard

    Something else has also changed this year. I have never seen such indifference and radio silence from the EQE organisation regarding problems and the ABC exam content. They also now seem to assume that everyone is cheating. Maybe that is the reason for the crazy ABC exams this year ? – make them so unpredictable that no-one can prepare or figure out the correct answer. But if they really believe everyone is cheating, they also need to be honest about it, and give the national patent organisations at least a chance to organise test centers with invigilation. Or, like in the UK, allow larger offices to host candidates with invigilation.I help candidates prepare for future exams, but I have no idea what they are going to do next year. I also have no idea how candidates should practice ABC in general to prepare, or how to practice in WISEflow. It is no longer a test of patent attorney knowledge or skill – it has become an expensive lottery for candidates.

    Reply
  12. Pete Pollard Avatar
    Pete Pollard

    I heard that the EQE secretariat is refusing to pass on any emails to the Examination Board which were not submitted via the form. This puts candidates in an impossible situation. The Disciplinary Board has been very negative about candidates who do not provide details about their complaints as soon as possible, and before marking. They are basically stopping you submitting info that you may need to rely on in an appeal. At least require a written decision from the Secretariat rejecting your complaint, so that you can either appeal that decision or submit it later during an appeal.Complaints about not being able to complain can be sent to EPO ombudsman ombuds@epo.org (don't expect miracles, but at least you will get a written response)Alternatively, contact your national epi PEC committee contactAlternatively, you can try to directly contact a member of the Examination Board

    Reply
  13. Pete Pollard Avatar
    Pete Pollard

    It is clear that there a lot of competing opinions behind the scenes, but all I am asking for is that candidates are informed well in advance what they can realistically expect. If there are plans to go back to in-person exams, this should be made known asap so that candidates can decide what is in their best interest. If non-native speakers are to be effectively blocked by requiring close to native language skills, then maybe it makes more sense for candidates to study the appropriate language than practice old exams. Every time a candidate fails despite adequate preparation, it is like being kicked in the head. Even after 1 failure, self-doubt starts to dominate their EQE preparation. Most attorneys are "control freaks" to a certain degree – you need to be able to keep your cases under control in spite of external influences. That makes the effect of failing much worse in some.If candidates are facing several years of resits with random chances of passing, it might make more sense to find a part-time law degree and do that. I had a colleague who did that – it took him 5 years. However, he passed everything first time, and he said the workload was similar to a national + European training. He also had a lot more work options open to him after qualification.The EQE system should respects candidates enough to be honest about the exams that they are preparing for.

    Reply
  14. Stefan Avatar
    Stefan

    Hi Pete, thank you for your detailed report. Do you really think next year we should expect a Chem Paper A and B?

    Reply
  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You have a good point Pete!

    Reply
  16. Pete Pollard Avatar
    Pete Pollard

    I don't know – they will also take extra steps to break any pattern once it appears or is commented on. But I don't think there is any problem with pre-announcing the flavours of the ABC exams.

    Reply
  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Right, it will save time, money and frustration aiming to the next year

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *