EQE is now a qualification lottery – it is only fair that you can buy more tickets😉. Preparation => Passing is now completely disconnected for Papers B / C. So please sign the Petition to Increase the Frequency of the EQE.
A “Fit to Practice” European Patent Attorney = mother language: Eng/Fre/Ger, an IT-specialist, follows the advice of experienced tutors: “don’t think, just write a lot“, “do exactly what the client says“, “don’t worry about understanding“, just assemble the pieces“, “finish reading PaperC1 during your lunch“.
There was always a random factor to A & B exams, but it was very rare for someone to fail twice. For those doing it in a 2nd language, the chances of passing are even lower – you do not even have time to read everything once.
And with the unpredictability of WISEflow (random crashes, missing features, new pop-up warnings), it is getting worse. A crash loses at least 20 mins. The blame is now solely directed to the student – e.g. from the secret EQE complaint form that you have to fill in immediately after the exam: “If any of the above peripherals were connected via USB hub or switch, please indicate which one“, “Did you have full admin rights on the PC/laptop you used?“, “Was any anti-virus software on the PC/laptop installed? Which antivirus was it? How was it configured?“, “How were the software updates configured on your PC/laptop?“, “CPU type?“, “RAM Size?“. The secret EQE complaint form also has vague questions, such as “Have you followed the instructions / recommendations from Wiseflow? – Yes or No” without specifying. Hopefully, no-one accidentally answered “No”.
Many candidates do not even bother to fill in the complaint form because they believe it is their own fault. Only 1x chance is given to complain using the well-hidden complaint form links on the EPO EQE page.
The conditions for doing the exam are continuously changed by just putting them on the EPO website. When was the last time that “Instructions To Candidates (ItC)” was published in OJEPO?
The IPREE has recently been amended (Feb 2025): “Rule 19(3) Complaints made by a candidate concerning the conduct of the examination are not entertained by the Examination Board unless a written statement of the facts is submitted in accordance with the instructions to candidates on the day of the examination paper in question.” This amended rule entered into force “with immediate effect” and even applies retroactively to “papers A, B, C and D under the IPREE dated 13 December 2018“.
Even with the best preparation, health is unpredictable, making it impossible or difficult to take the exam on the scheduled date. If you have temporary or permanent disabilities making it difficult to sit facing the camera for periods of more than 1hr, you are disadvantaged. E.g. From the secret EQE complaint form: “Please note that complaints cannot be considered if based on sickness during the exam*
Informing the EQE organisation before the exam is answered with a standard answer “We sincerely regret to hear about the challenges you are currently facing and understand the difficulties this situation presents. Rule 17 IPREE is intended for long-term or permanent disabilities, which does not apply in the case of a sudden illness. Since your condition arose only some weeks before the EQE, there is no possibility of considering any adjustments. This is why candidates must inform us of their condition when enrolling in the EQE. If you feel you would benefit from being allowed to take unscheduled (toilet) breaks we would allow this upon presenting medical evidence. Even in this case breaks would have to be kept to a minimum and be reported to the invigilator. We appreciate your understanding and extend our best wishes for your recovery“.
We need to make the qualification process straightforward and predictable. Otherwise, we are the last generation of European Patent Attorneys. I am not the only one saying this: information.patentepi.org/issue-4-2024/listening-to-our-members-delegations.html
Comments
13 replies on “EQE is now a qualification lottery 🤑”
I wonder if any stakeholder from the EPO related to the EQE Exam Committee is reading your articles. This issue of having marks which penalize the candidates exorbitantly has serious costs for individuals and businesses. I don’t know if they take these issues seriously or whether they are apathetic to the sufferings of the candidates. Clearly the exam’s randomness has to do with disadvantaging candidates (resitters) and, for instance, predominantly those with little support from their trainers. What would it take to wake them up from a slumber?
They do read the blogs, but in general they are only focused on the big picture.
– the passing rate is determined by the marking, which is always adapted afterwards.
Behind the scenes, it is a mess:
– Fewer official complaints and fewer appeals is interpreted as satisfaction, but a lot of candidates either think it is their fault, or have given up.
– the whole EQE process is vague and obscure, especially around disabilities, marking, complaints and appeals.
– no-one is in charge. The Supervisory Board has no power over the Examination Board. The Examination Board has no power over the Examination Committees.
– the Examination Board does not follow the directions of the Disciplinary Board of Appeal
We need to make the qualification process straightforward and predictable. Otherwise, we are the last generation of European Patent Attorneys. I am not the only one saying this: https://information.patentepi.org/issue-4-2024/listening-to-our-members-delegations.html
Also the current “business as usual” attitude is advantageous to those already practicing in the larger EPC states. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas😉.
Hopefully the petition will help show that the profession is taking these issues seriously.
Bianca ter Laan: How is it nowadays for non-native GEF candidates? Any compensation, time e.g.?
— Gabriele Honecker: No, nothing.
Baris Atalay: Thank you for this. I’ve been hearing similar thoughts from my Paper B candidates this year, there’s definitely some frustration. Haven’t heard much from the C candidates yet… curious to see that too!
Tronko Natalia: Thanks Pete for sharing.
I had to make sneak peak into German text to understand Shakespeare EN language in paper B. Finished to read C1 during my lunch🙄
SJ Paines: I disagree with the petitioner that “missing a single feature in claim 1 and losing 40 marks” counts as “a minor oversight”
— Gabriele Honecker: For me, paper A has always been Russian roulette. If you have not the same set of “essential” features as the model solution, deductions can be very, very heavy.
—- SJ Paines: You make a good point that drafting to pass paper A doesn’t reflect drafting in real life – I agree! I still find it difficult to accept that an error that loses you 40 marks is “minor”, however.
Radovan Cechvala: Well looking to the 2025 paper B I just can say that perhaps the CH guys finally get how the E/M guys feel about when staring at a chemical paper with all the hydrogels, acetyl and their likes, where you have no glue whether compound A is B or compound C is D 😉
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/petepollard_eqe-paperb-paperc-activity-7309868710733709312-K4BA
Tiago Leal: This years paper B felt exactly like that. Just a writing as fast as possible competition 😔
Dear Pete,
I have been training candidates for Papers ABC since 1993, and I must confess that they have become somehow predictable with time. I also met some ayatollahs who considered their method was the only right one. With the new EQE I will stop training people for it.
That some thoughts came along to reform the EQE were thus not completely out of place.
In this respect we should not forget that the President’s idea was to have only an exam of the type MCQ, like the pre-exam, which is cheaper and quicker to correct. The COVID was also a good pretext to save money by only having an online examination. This puts clearly the burden on the candidates and their equipment.
The introduction of Wise Flow has certainly not improved the general situation. It is a bit better than at the beginning, but far from what would be expected. It has not made sitting the EQE easier. The contrary is true.
However, when looking at recent years, the predictability of the papers has been counteracted by the number or the length of the documents to be read before being in a position to start writing. In this respect, the papers have become even more an exercise in time management, but not in comprehension to the job of a representative. This is also not necessarily a way to select people fit to practice.
The situation is even worse as new EQE is on the doorstep. I have not yet seen any mock paper allowing candidates to get an idea on what the future EQE papers could look like. This is also not glorious for the EPO/EQE Examination Board and Committees.
What struck me is the tone of the Disciplinary Board when sitting recently in order to review complaints of candidates. Some complaints have been rightly dismissed, but other were rightly accepted, and an appeal should not have been necessary. I wonder if the board does at all look at the papers before sending them to the DB. The successful candidates were most probably not alone and other ones had the same problems. I have not heard that their situation has been checked, but this should have been done automatically.
I agree with you that the EQE has become a lottery and this is not encouraging young people to enter the patent world. What happens in certain countries is also alarming. Wanting to digitise and save money at all costs, is not necessarily helping the profession. The position of candidates not having one EPO official language as mother tongue has certainly not improved. I fear that it will continue to degrade.
Hi Daniel,
thanks for your supporting comments. Your comment about the Disciplinary Board is interesting – I remember just a few years ago a lot of positive stories about candidates who were given the benefit of the doubt and treated as people. They even had special facilities in Munich for those who had limitations so that they could still do the exam with assistance and more time.
Now I only hear a lot of horrible stories – people who were late logging-in and not allowed to sit the exam, a mother who had to breastfeed her baby in front of the webcam, random technical issues that are not serious enough to get any extra time compensation during the exam, 20 minutes to get an invigilator, etc. Everyone is treated like a cheater.
I was initially in favor of the reform, but if they are just moving things around, and the EQE system stays the same, then nothing will actually change for candidates. Although the exams will be shorter, the syllabus has actually increased, and we still have no guidance or examples for the M2 and M3.
Hi Pete, the petition you are linking to is incorrect. Germany has three dates per year for the bar examination, not two 😉 I am sure you have the channels to alert the starter of the petition?
Luca Falciola: Thanks Pete to speak openly and clearly about that but there are many evidences that EPO is more and more in the hands of business consultants and communication experts rather than people with real-life experience of patent matters. On another topic, see how patent information services are managed (less and less support dialogue with patent information specialists, Espacenet at 1.47 release, and still no feature for appropriately searching biologicals and chemicals)