Tuesday, 7 July 2015

How did Pre-Exam 2014 candidates to in EQE 2015?

Of the 985 candidates sitting the D paper in 2015, 428 passed the Pre-Exam in 2014 (of which 7 after the appeals to statement 10.4).

These 428 candidates scored as follows:

PE2014 candidates score > 68-69 70-79 80-89 90-100 All non-0 Never Pre All Pre 2014
#sitting D (non-zero) 7 98 218 105 985 325 428
#passes D  1 53 170 98 554 110 322
#passes+comp fail D  4 63 185 101 667 151 353
#compfail D 3 10 15 3 113 41 31
#fail D (non-zero) 3 35 33 4 318 174 75
#fail D (zero) = no-show 1 3 3 1 44 27 8
#passes D  14% 54% 78% 93% 56% 34% 75%
#passes+comp fail D  57% 64% 85% 96% 68% 46% 82%
#compfail D 43% 10% 7% 3% 11% 13% 7%
#fail D (non-zero) 43% 36% 15% 4% 32% 54% 18%

Clearly, the higher the Pre-Exam score, the higher the chance to pass paper D. Probably this is an indication of both good legal preparation with serious studying for the Pre-Exam in the first year, combined with a good follow-up study and exam preparation in the second year.

It is also interesting to see that one of the candidates that appealed the initial fail decision passed paper D and 3 more passed paper D with a compensable fail. He or she even passed paper D even passed all four papers, with scores 62, 54, 52, and 56! Special congratulations to whoever it may be!

Further, see the discussions on the D-blog "D 2015 results for various types of candidates" and on our general EQE blog "Results Main Exam EQE 2015 are available!".
Roel, 7 July 2015


Wednesday, 3 June 2015

Examiner's Report and Results Pre-Exam 2015 (addendum about cardboard)

An addendum is now available to the Pre-Exam Examiners' Report for 2015: here.

It reads:

Statements 15.2 and 17.3 
Since it can be argued (as it was done in some appeals) that the disclosure of D1 may not be sufficient for the candidate to conclude that cardboard generally comprises wood fibres, it was decided to award marks also for the answer “True” in statement 15.2 and for the answer “False” in statement 17.3 to the appellants (Art. 24(3) of the Regulation on the EQE for professional representatives). In addition, also candidates who did not file an appeal on this issue but in the light of these considerations would have passed, were upgraded and were informed accordingly. 

Many thanks to the Examination Committee and Board - it is very unusual for the EQE reports to be updated. This really helps future candidates who practice the exam and then look in the Examiners' Report for guidance.

Monday, 11 May 2015

Looking back at Pre-Exam 2015 after some successful appeals

Last Thursday, "Appeal success" posted as comment to our blog Examiner's Report and Results Pre-Exam 2015: "It seems that appeals based on 15.2 and 17.3 have been successful and reversed by the Examination Board themselves without the need for the intervention of the [Disciplinary] Board of Appeal - an Appellant at our firm received a letter today and it looked like a standard letter."

Anonymous, Jessica and Onur confirmed to have received the same good news: Jessica shared the content of the letter with the blog readers:

"The Examination Board has considered your appeal well founded and has decided to rectify its decision. Your answers to statements 15.2 and 17.3 are justifiable and an evaluation of your work on this basis would lead to your passing the pre-examination 2015.

The decision communicated to you with letter of 27 March 2015 stating your having failed the pre-examination 2015 is therefore withdrawn by the examination board.

Your answer paper has been awarded the following marks: 70

Based on the marks above and pursuant to Rule 6(2) IPREE, the examination board has decided to award the grade PASS.

I also take this opportunity to indicate that application to the main examination (papers A, B, C, D) of the EQE 2016 will start on 14 July 2015.

Should you have already enrolled to the pre-examination 2016, your application will be deemed null and void and the fees paid will be reimbursed.

The appeal fees will be reimbursed as soon as possible."


An extensive discussion can be found on IPKats blog "A day late and a dollar short: EQE appeal outcome favours the brave". Both that blog post by IPKat itself as well as the comments posted doubt the suitability of the True-False or any other multiple choice format for the Pre-Exam. Also, IPKat does not understand how it is possible that the guinea pig tests and further quality systems were not able to prevent the problem to occur, while the day after the exam, the discussion on the DeltaPatents' blog showed that there was a real issue with the cardboard. 

IPKat indicated "that one part of the problem may be haste. The emphasis on getting results out quickly is fine until the integrity of the exam starts to suffer, and from the outside it looks as if the committee, Board or Secretariat could have done with being allowed a little more time with the announcement of this year's marks. The  Supervisory Board might need to look at the time given to get the results right." In this context, it may be worthwhile to recall that -on last year's meeting between the Committees and the tutors- the Pre-Exam Committee did not accept the offer of a group of tutors to review the answers before making them public and mefore the marking, as there was no room for interference of tutors (see epi information 4/2014, page 138 ff , 3rd bullet in right column on page 145).

Further, quite harsh comments were posted to the IPKat blog to the 2015 Pre-Exam, as now three (claims analysis) statements are qualified as not ambiguous (6 marks) and even more statements are subject to further appeals...  (some of them having a high chance of success, in my view, 5.2, 16.3, and 20.4). Last year it was one (legal) statement (10.4) where appeal was succesful -- and where the decision was reversed for all 15 candidates that  originally failed whereas only 5 of them appealed. 

Although I do not share all of the statements made there, it seems that the successful appeals, the blog posts, the comments and the unrest caused to several tens of candidates (probably  about half of the 59 candidates that scored 66-69 marks, see here) seems to call for some improvements.
It is not only a long period of unrest and uncertainly for candidates, but -with these uncertainties as to (un)ambiguities- it is also for us tutors difficult to defend the pre-exam's usefulness and fairness, and it is also not really our favourite act to defend  answers that deviate from the Examiner's Report answers and to hereby show that the Exam Committee was wrong...


Pre-Exam Course in Istanbul for EQE 2016 preparation

In co-operation with Patent Çare we offer our Basic Legal Course also in Istanbul this year.

The course is offered as an 8+2 day course in 2 blocks of 4+1 days. In the first 4 days of each block, the legal concepts of the EPC and PCT are introduced, discussed interactively and practiced with some basic questions. These 4 days are immediately followed by 1 day of review and practice, specifically for the Pre-Exam. Hereby, candidates get a rapid overview of legal concepts in the EPC and PCT, and also practice how to apply in Pre-Exam style questions.

The first 4+1-day block is scheduled on 27 - 31 August 2015, and addresses all EPC procedural topics of the Pre-Exam syllabus.
The second 
4+1-day block is scheduled on 18 - 23 December 2015, and addresses all EPC substantive patent law topics and all PCT topics of the Pre-Exam syllabus.

Please register online or use the form in the brochure on our website before 15 June 2015.






Wednesday, 1 April 2015

Enrolment Pre-Exam 2016

The March issue of the Official Journal of the EPO is now online and contains the official
Announcement of the European qualifying examination 2016, including enrolment information for Pre-Exam 2016 and the main exam paper of EQE 2016.
The pre-examination will be held on 29 February 2016.
The web portal  for enrolment will be available [from 15 April 2015*] until 2 June 2015After 2 June 2015 the web portal will be closed and it will not be possible to apply for enrolment to the pre-examination 2016.

Patent attorney trainees wishing to register and enrol for the pre-examination for the first time, must have completed a total period as defined in Article 11(2)(a) REE of at least two years of full-time employment by 1 March 2016.
EPO Examiners wishing to register and enrol for the pre-examination for the first time, must have completed a total period as defined in Article 11(2)(a) REE of at least two years by 1 March 2016.
Candidates permanently resident and working in the EPO member states AL, BG, HR, CY, CZ, EE, MK, GR, HU, LV, LT, MT, PL, PT, RO, RS, SK, SI or TR may file a request for subsidised examination fees. Candidates must send their request for subsidies before submitting their application to sit the EQE 2016.
Candidates wishing to register and enrol for the pre-examination for the first time are referred to Article 11(1)(a) REE and Rules 11 to 14 IPREE.
Candidates are strongly recommended to use credit card as method of payment as this will ensure swift payment. [...] Late receipt of payment will lead to the application being rejected.
I cite further parts of the announcement in our parallel EQE blog in the post "Enrolment EQE 2016". 
Please refer to OJ 2015, A30 (html English) or (trilangual pdf) for all details. 
The REE and IPREE were publushed in Suppl OJ 2/2014REE and IPREE.
Today, 1 April 2015, the EQE pages are not yet updated, and registration not possible yet (only as of 15 April, via the webportal).
Remark: there is still some places available in the first of our 8-day Basic Legal courses for Pre-Exam EQE 2016 preparation, in Eindhoven (NL). This first course starts with a 4-day block on EPC procedural law on 20-23 April, followed by a 2-day block on EPC substantive patent law on 18-19 June, and a 2-day block on PCT procedural law on 14-15 September 2015. Refer to our Pre-Exam course page for details, and to our earlier blog posts on EQE 2016 training and a 2x 4-day version of the 8-day course in Poland.

*Update 3 April 2015: looks like the webportal is already open!!!

Wednesday, 25 March 2015

Training for EQE 2016

A brief overview of our training offers for EQE 2016 is given in an earlier other blog.

The first basic legal course, suitable for Pre-Exam 2016 sitters, and well as for Main Exam 2016 sitters that are not yet on solid legal ground, starts already with a first 4-day block in Eindhoven (NL) on 20-23 April 2015, addressing EPC procedural law and practice! This first block will be followed by next 2-day block on 18 - 19 June 2015 to discuss EPC substantive patent law and practice, and a last 2-day block on 14 - 15 September for PCT procedural law and practice

Details can be found on our website ("training", "webshop", general EQE training brochure, and 8-day basic legal brochure)


We also offer the course in other countries, and -for the first time- in Poland. The 8-day basic legal course in Poland is given in two blocks of 4 days, reducing travel cost and overhead of travel time. The blocks are scheduled on 8 - 11 June 2015 (EPC procedure) and 21 - 24 September 2016 (EPC substantive patent law and PCT procedure) -- refer to our other blog post and the 8-day basic legal (PL) brochure.

Hope to see you in once of our courses!

Thursday, 19 March 2015

Examiner's Report and Results Pre-Exam 2015

The Examiner's Report for Pre-Exam 2015 was just put online: here.
Update - 3 June 2015: an addendum has been published to the Examiners Report


The official answers (and where we deviated in our provisional answers - see below) are:

Q.1:  T, F, T, F;
Q.2:  F, T, F, T;
Q.3:  F, T, F, T;
Q.4:  T, F, T, F;
Q.5:  F, T, F, T;
Q.6:  F, F, T, F;
Q.7:  T, T, F, T;
Q.8:  F, T, T, F;
Q.9:  T, F, T, T;
Q.10: T, T,
 F, T;

Q.11:  F, F, F, F;
Q.12:  F, T, T, F;
Q.13:  F, T, F, F;
Q.14:  T, T, T, F;
Q.15:  T, F (we had T)@, F, T;
Q.16:  T, F, T (we had F), F;
Q.17:  T, T, T (we had F)@, F;
Q.18:  T, T, F, F;
Q.19:  T, F, F, T;
Q.20:  T, "see above" (we had T), T, T.

As to 20.2, the Examiner's report indicates:
  • The statement 20.2 indicates that the material of D2 should replace the material of D1. This is not a valid argument within the framework of the problem solution approach, since D2 and not D1 is the closest prior art document. Hence, the answer to 20.2 is “False”.
    The formulation of 20.2 was however unnecessarily complex. Just by using the expression “D2 could be replaced by” instead of “D2 could replace” the solution would become “True”, since there is no teaching that solid wood could be replaced by the material of D1. For this reason, it is exceptionally decided to award marks for the answer “True” as well.
So, our (provisional) legal answers and our (provisional) claims analysis answers would have attracted all 50 marks from the legal part, and -with 3 isolated errors- 44 marks from the claims analysis part, so a total of 94. Further, for 20.2, both T and F were considered correct, which "saved us" as we deviate for 20.2 from the originally expected answer (F).

As a consequence, if you calculated a provisional score using our provisional answers, and had a different answer than we had for 15.2, 16.3, 17.3 and/or 20.2, your real score will be somewhat higher than expected, whereas your real score will be lower if you had the same answers as we for 15.2, 16.3 and/or 17.3.

The different answers to 15.2 and 17.3 relate to-what is referred to in the discussion to our claims blog- as the "cardboard issue" - the official answers to 15.2 and 17.3 rely on cardboard necessarily comprising / being made of wood fibers, whereas we considered the term cardboard to be a generic term and cardboard comprising wood fibers only one of the possible cardboard types -as we indicated in the discussion to the blog-. I refer to the earlier discussion to our claims blog for all arguments in favour of either conclusion, which were all given in the earlier discussion between various candidates and between candidates and our team.

@ = Examimer's report answered F for 15.2 and T for 17.3 -- however, appeals based on opposite answers were successful, so our answers T and F are (also) correct [comment added on 8 May].

We will discuss the differences between the Exam Committee's answers and reasoning and ours tomorrow or early next week in more detail - please feel free to already post your comments now.

Best regards, hope all of you that had a serious preparation passed this Pre-Exam and can now start preparing to sit one or more of next year's main exam papers!

Roel

-----------

Yesterday, Pre-Exam 2015 candidates received the following information from the Exam Secretariat:
  • The results of the pre-examination of the European qualifying examination 2015 will be available on the EPO website from 20 March 2015 (12:00 CET) and will remain on-line until 8 September 2015 under the following link: http://www.epo.org/patents/learning/qualifying-examination/statistics.html

    You will be able to find your results by searching in the list for your EQE Registration number (EQEReg).
    The dispatch of the result letters is foreseen for the 27 March 2015. They will be sent by registered mail. If you are not present upon delivery, please collect the letter at your post office before it is returned to the Examination Secretariat.

    Please be aware that the Examination Secretariat is unable to resend any original letters and the sending of copies will take some time. 
    Please also be informed that no information concerning results can be given over the telephone.
Surprise!!! The results came available already earlier today (20 March 2015): a bit before 11 am!

The document shows the results per EQEreg number and includes the following disclaimer:
  • Please note that we cannot accept liability for the information given. Only results as notified to you in your result letter are binding. 
    Note from the editor: unfortunately, this sentence turned out not to be an empty phrase - at some moment during the day (20 March), the results file  was replaced by another file wherein the scores were decreased by 2 marks for 346 and 1 mark for 28 candidates (out of 796 candidates that actually sat the exam, i.e., had a non-zero score) [Special thx go to to 
    Anonymous20 March 2015 at 16:01 and Rdiner20 March 2015 at 16:07 for having discovered this] - and was changed again later, back to the initial list - let's assume that that is the correct list, until other indications show otherwise.
  • Closing dates for the European qualifying examination 2016 
    The closing date for the pre-examination is 2 June 2015. 
     
    T
    he closing date for the main examination is 8 September 2015.
      
  • All relevant information will be available in OJ EPO 3/2015.

Statistics Pre-Exam 2015 

From an analysis of the published results, we conclude:
  • # candidates enrolled:  811
  • # candidates sitting:     796 (non-zero marks)
  • # candidates passing:   591 (70 or more marks): 74,25% of # candidates sitting
  • # candidates failing:     205 (below 70 marks):    25,75% of # candidates sitting
  • average score:               75,39 marks (of candidates sitting)
  • maximum score:            96 marks
Congratulations to all of you that passed!!!!

So, the pass rate is -as we expected in view of the increased difficulty level (see our "First impressions" blog)- considerable lower than in earlier years, where it was 88-90%.
(Whether there will be any corrections to the marks in view of the cardboard issue remains to be seen)

The score distribution is, in bin sizes of 5 marks and 1 marks:



Resitters

It is also interesting to see how the resitters have been doing this year:

Pre-Exam
Candidates
Failing
Resitting
Of which
Of which
Candidates
in that
in that
this
passed
failed
in:
year
year
year
now
again
2012
390
5
0
0
0
2013
643
2
1
0
1
2014
648
107
61
17 
44 

The scores obtained by resitters in this Pre-Exam compare to the scores when they sat in 2014 as shown in the following figure:


I consider the statistics quite alarming: the vast majority of the Pre-Exam candidates that failed in an earlier year, failed again this time!!! 

One aim of failing an exam is to get a wake-up call and understanding that serious studying is needed. The high number of candidates failing again seems to indicate that they did not get this. Some may have failed the first or second time for other reasons, such as illness or nerves, but it seems unlikely that that holds for such a vast majority. Why do quite some candidates not improve? Did they study hard but anyhow failed again due to the increased difficulty level of this year (as indicated at least by the lower pass rate and the lower average score)? Or did they not study harder, and did they not recognize that they need to change their way of preparation and that they need to really start studying? Neither the EPC law, nor the PCT law, let alone their application to legal as well as claims analysis questions is such that you have any chance to pass by going to the Pre-Exam without a good preparation.And there is ample possibilities to prepare well: we provide good courses and good training material for candidates that do not have the level required for the Pre-Exam.
It was multiple resitters like these in the main exam that led to the introduction of the Pre-Exam!!!
And what I considers most alarmingly -and this may sound harsh...-: the resitters of 2014 are already active as trainee patent attorneys for three years or more, otherwise they could not sit the exam - or as examiners at the EPO for four or more!

The candidate that failed in 2013 and resat this year (skipped 2014), only improved his/her score from 40 to 59 - still quite far below 70. The other candidate that failed in 2013 did sit in 2014 where he or she with 89 marks: this shows that after a first  failure (which can happen to anyone, for whatever reason), taking the wakeup call serious and preparing well can thus lead to a huge improvement - it seems that this candidate decided to better be over-prepared for the Pre-Exam (looking into the future also for D, where your legal knowledge needs to be a further level up) than to just give it a try again!

As the Exam Committee indicated, the Pre-Exam is designed to give an incentive to let candidates start studying early, and with the intention to let candidates that are well-prepared (and well on track with their preparation for the main exam the year after) pass. You can study, practice and train all of this!

Tuesday, 10 March 2015

Deltapatents will also provide the 8-day Basic Legal Course in Poland for EQE 2016 preparation

We will provide our 8-day Basic Legal Course also in Poland for the first time, in cooperation with Patpol.

The course will be offered in Poland at a reduced course fee compared to the course fee in our training facilities in the Netherlands and as a 25% reduction compared course fee in other countries across Europe.

The course will be given in two blocks, a first 4-day block covering EPC procedural law in June and a second 4-day block covering EPC substantive patent law and PCT procedural law (including EP entry) in September. For maximal efficiency and effectiveness, the course will include the reference book "References to the EPC", updated to include the changes to the Implementing Regulations of the EPC per 1 April 2015 and to the changes to the Regulations under the PCT per 1 July 2015.

By offering the course in cooperation with Patpol in the Patpol office in Warszawa at a reduced course fee, DeltaPatents and Patpol allow candidates from Poland, as well as neighbouring countries and countries that acceded relatively recently to the EPC, to participate in our high-quality, intensive, effective and efficient legal training for EQE 2016 preparation.

For details, refer to our other post here.

Tuesday, 24 February 2015

Our (provisional) answers to the Claim Analysis part of Pre-Exam 2015


Before checking your own answers with the provisional answers given below, please first check out on the blog post  First impressions of Pre-Exam 2015?  for general questions and general comments about Pre-Exam 2015 (click here for EnglishFrenchGerman version)!, and post your first impressions there.The Legal  part is discussed in a separate blog post: Our (provisional) answers to the Legal Part of Pre-Exam 2015

Our preliminary answers (not yet thoroughly reviewed) are:
Q.11:  F, F, F, F
Q.12:  F, T, T, F# 
Q.13:  F, T, F, F
Q.14:  T, T, T, F
Q.15:  T, T@, F, T
Q.16:  T*, F, F, F
Q.17:  T, T, F@, F
Q.18:  T, T, F, F
Q.19:  T, F**, F, T
Q.20:  T, T***, T, T

* = answer depends on how strictly intermediate generalisation test is applied, see below
** = different interpretations possible but we tend to 'false', see below; Examiner's report considers both answers correct [comment added after Examiners report became available]
*** = ambiguous statement but we tend to 'true', see below
# = see comment of Arthur L for reasoning in support of 'true'
@ = Examimer's report answered F for 15.2 and T for 17.3 -- however, appeals based on opposite answers were successful, so our answers T and F are(also) correct [comment added on 8 May]

Any different opinions are welcome! Please post your opinions as comments to this blog, so everybody can from the discussion. Comments are welcome in any official EPO language. 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 26-02-2014 23:59"), whereas using your real name or a pseudonym is more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation.

For comments, legal basis and our key considerations and reflections: click to read more.


Note: there are so many comments that you may need to click on "Load more" at the end of the first long page of comments to be able to see also the most recent comment threads!!!

Monday, 23 February 2015

Our (provisional) answers to the Legal Part of Pre-Exam 2015


Before checking your own answers with the provisional answers given below, please first check out on the blog post  First impressions of Pre-Exam 2015?  for general questions and general comments about Pre-Exam 2015 (click here for EnglishFrenchGerman version)!, and post your first impressions there. The Claims Analysis part is discussed in a separate blog post: Our (provisional) answers to the Claims Analysis Part of Pre-Exam 2015 

My provisional answers (not yet thoroughly reviewed; and subejct to any typos...) are:


Q.1:  T, F, T*, F**;
Q.2:  F, T, F, T;
Q.3:  F, T, F, T;
Q.4:  T, F, T, F;
Q.5:  F, T, F***, T****;
Q.6:  F, F, T, F;
Q.7: T, T, F, T;
Q.8: F, T, T, F;
Q.9: T, F, T, T;
Q.10: T, T
*****, F, T.

Key legal basis and/or argumentation to the answers is given below. I will double-check the answers today (Tue Feb 24) with my colleague tutors in DeltaPatents. Some comments for now:

* /** Q.1: not really a nice question to start with: 1.3 and 1.4 may have taken quite some time.
* For 1.3, I originally answered False as I did not recognize that the "change of representation" from A to B implied a termination of the authorization of Mr.A. Oops... See the discussion below: thx guys! 
*** 5.3: a bit of a tricky question, but almost the same as 4.2 of Pre-Exam 2014: an easy mark?!
**** 5.4: OJ 2013, 156, example 5, item 22; "on" in the statement.
***** 10.2: who of you ever tried?

Any different opinions are welcome! Please post your opinions as comments to this blog, so everybody can from the discussion.  Comments are welcome in any official EPO language. 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 26-02-2014 23:59"), whereas using your real name or a pseudonym is more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation.

First impressions Pre-Exam 2015?


To all who sat the Pre-Exam 2015: 

What are your first impressions? Any general or specific comments?
Were the topics well balanced?
Was the Pre-Exam more difficult than in 2012, 2013 and 2014? 
Were the Legal Questions difficult? 
Were the Claims Analysis Questions difficult?
How many marks do you expect to have scored for the legal part, the claims analysis part and in total?
What is your expectation of the pass rate and the average score?

Was your preparation adequate?

We look forward to your comments!

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 27-02-2015 02:13 am"), whereas using your real name or a pseudonym is more personal, more interesting and makes a more attractive conversation.


You are invited to post your comments as to first and general impressions to the Pre-Exam as a whole to this blog as well as to any first and general impressions about the two parts (Legal; Claims Analysis) to this blogPlease post your comments as to specific questions and elements of (y)our answers  to the respective blogs where we provide our (provisional) answers:
   - Our (provisional) answers to the Legal Part of Pre-Exam 2015and
   - Our (provisional) answers  to the Claims Analysis Part of Pre-Exam 2015

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

Copies of the Pre-Exam 2015 paper in each of the three languages are available here (linked to the EQE Compendium website): 
EnglishFrenchGerman: enjoy!!!

And hope to see all of you in one of our main exam courses: for more information (details of the courses, provisional dates, locations throughout Europe, and for paper C and D also German and French language courses for EQE 2016 preparation) refer to our Training page with links to the various courses that we provide, and feel free to contact Mieke Zonjee, our course coordinator for additional information at TRAINING -at- deltapatents -dot- com.

The DeltaPatents EQE training team


Friday, 20 February 2015

Strict rules of conduct for the exam (update)

We have now received a clear confirmation of the policy during the exam regarding electronic devices from the EQE secretariat:

Electronic devices are strictly forbidden in the examination hall, no matter if they are turned off or not.
Any candidate found with such a device in the hall is clearly breaching the regulations, and he/she might face disqualification from the exam.
The only electronic devices which may be allowed in the examination hall are medical devices that candidates need for health reasons.
We recommend that candidates leave their mobile phone at their hotels if they are travelling.
There are no cloakrooms at the examination centre, however we will provide envelopes (you will have to write your name on it) where the device can be placed and it will be put in a box.
The box will be outside of the examination hall. Neither the Examination centres nor the Examination Secretariat  will take any responsibility for loss or damage to the items stored in this box.
This is probably not the solution that you wanted, but this is becoming common practice for exams. A simple watch with an analogue dial is the only thing you can have with you.

So either leave them all at home, or in the hotel, or car, or in train station locker.

And finally: we wish all candidates good luck!!!

Friday, 6 February 2015

Strict rules for the conduct of the exam

We have heard from some candidates that the CEIPI tutors are warning that the some of the exam regulations are to be very strictly applied this year and in the future.

If you have any further questions, you can ask the EQE secretariat at eqe@epo.org

1) Electronic devices
Instructions to candidates concerning the conduct of the European qualifying examination

9. Candidates are not permitted to: (a) bring to the pre-examination or the main examination any electronic devices other than an analogue wrist watch with no additional options, unless express
prior permission to use such devices has been given by the Examination Secretariat;

14. The invigilators shall take the names of candidates who do not comply with these instructions and report to the Examination Board any other relevant circumstances.

According to an e-mail from the EQE organization (see below), no electronic devices (phones) will be allowed at all in the room. It therefore seems advisable not to take phones, watches, etc with you to the exam location as I am not aware of any lockers at the exam locations. If you have books etc. under the table, make sure there are no electronic devices(even turned off) in the bag as well.

2. Closing signal => means no more writing
Instructions to candidates concerning the conduct of the European qualifying examination
18. (Pre-exam) When the closing signal is given,
candidates must:(a) stop writing immediately
24. (Main Exam When the closing signal is given, candidates must:
(a) stop writing immediately,

It is common practice to number your pages at the end, and there was a degree of flexibility. But this may no longer be possible. So take the last few minutes to number your pages.

If the time is finished, and you forgot to number them, you can ask the invigilator if it is still possible under their supervision (this is also possible if you forget to hand in a page)

----------------------------------

For the possible consequences, see R.19 and R.20 of the REE implementing regulations:
Rule 19 Conduct of the pre-examination or the examination
(1) If a candidate fails to comply with the instructions to candidates concerning the conduct of the pre-examination or the examination or with instructions given on the basis thereof by the invigilators,
the following measures may be taken by the Examination Board in respect of that candidate:
(a) deduction of marks
(b) instructions to the competent Examination
(c) instructions to the competent Examination Committee not to mark the answer paper concerned and not to award any marks, and/or
(d) disqualification from the preexamination or the examination for a given year.

Rule 20 Fraudulent behaviour
(1) Fraudulent behaviour is any behavior by a candidate with the aim of obtaining an undue advantage during registration/enrolment or during/after the pre-examination or the examination.
Such behaviour may consist, inter alia, in presenting false documents, making false or incomplete statements and/or using equipment during the preexamination or the examination which is
not allowed.
(2) The following measures may be taken by the Examination Board if fraudulent behaviour has been discovered:
(a) refusal of registration and/or enrolment for the forthcoming and subsequent pre-examinations or examinations
(b) deduction of marks
(c) instructions to the competent Examination Committee to mark the answer paper concerned only in part
(d) instructions to the competent Examination Committee not to mark the answer paper concerned and not to award any marks, and/or
(e) disqualification from the preexamination or the examination for a given year.

Letter from EQE secretariat:
Sehr geehrte Bewerberin, sehr geehrter Bewerber,
aufgrund der Erfahrungen der letzten Jahre und um eine faire Prüfung zu gewährleisten, möchten wir Sie an Folgendes erinnern:
Während der EEP sind elektronische Geräte VERBOTEN.
Mobiltelefone und viele andere elektronische Geräte sind heute ein fester Bestandteil unseres täglichen Lebens. Sie können jedoch nicht Teil der EEP sein und es ist strengstens verboten, elektronische Geräte jeder Art, seien es Mobiltelefone, Kameras, digitale Uhren oder Wecker mit in den Prüfungsraum zu nehmen (siehe Anweisungen für den Ablauf der europäischen Eignungsprüfung, Zusatzpublikation ABl. EPA 2/2014, S. 38 ff.). Unter keinen Umständen sind elektronische Geräte im Prüfungsraum erlaubt.
Bewerber, die mit einem elektronischen Gerät im Prüfungsraum vorgefunden werden (ausgenommen bei ausdrücklicher Genehmigung des Prüfungssekretariats), werden der Prüfungskommission gemeldet. Dies kann ernste Folgen haben (siehe Regeln 19 und 20 ABVEP).
Das Prüfungssekretariat ist überzeugt, dass Sie die Regeln respektieren. Wir wünschen Ihnen viel Erfolg für die kommende europäische Eignungsprüfung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Das Prüfungssekretariat
Europäische Eignungsprüfung
Europäisches Patentamt, 80298 München, Germany
Tel. +49/89/2399-5155; Fax +49/89/2399-514