First ever pre-exam training for EQE 2012 now available
We are the first in Europe to offer a training program for those who want to do the pre-exam in 2012, and the full EQE in 2013. Some background details on what is required can be found here in a presentation I gave at CEIPI.tutors' meeting in June.
We are offering a 4x 3-day combined pre-exam training (legal topics, A/B topics and exam training) sessions. It does require 4 trips to Eindhoven in June, Sept, Oct & Nov 2011, but this is designed so that you get optimal feedback on the homework questions you make between the sessions. The legal topics will include both substantive and procedural modules.
We are also offering a 3-day exam training for the pre-exam (both legal and A/B parts) in June 2011, to be repeated in September and December, for those who have already followed a legal training elsewhere.
If interested, please contact training@deltapatents.com
We also offer an in-house variant of 10 days just covering the legal issues.
We also offer an in-house variant of 10 days just covering the legal issues.
For those succesful in the pre-exam, we will also offer an EQE training course in 2012 which will bring candidates from the pre-exam level to the full EQE level.
SHARE:
EQE 2010 - Examiners report for DII
The Examiners reports are now available for DI and DII
I have looked at the DII solution, and compared it to my own answers I made in the office immediately after the exam. It was not an easy DII paper.
The first part was concerned with KA (Knowledge for All), who did not want KM (Knowledge is Money) to get a patent for EPKM that referred to EP1. The model solution proposes that KA abandons their earliest application (EP1) for the signal (EPKM not enabled as signal needed for invention), and pursues a later application (EP2) with a later effective date without claiming priority of the earliest application..
The DII exam is supposed to sketch a practical situation - I have never heard of a client who only files applications to block others, so it seems a little strange not to simply get your strongest right (the signal) granted and use it to block exploitation. However, the client has asked a specific question - can we stop KM from getting a a patent on a fishing method? On the exam, even if it seems a little strange, you should always answer the client's question FIRST. Then if you do not think this is the best course of action, you can propose something else BRIEFLY.
The model solution also states that claiming priority of EP1 with EP2 will enable EPKM because EP1 becomes publicly available. Although EP1 does become publicly available (Art.54(2)), this does not automatically mean that EPKM is enabled (Art.83). EPKM refers to EP1 by its number, including it by reference. If EP1 is withdrawn, the file will not be made public, so the skilled person will not be able to find EP1 by following the reference in EPKM.
The public has to be able to find it without undue burden T737/90 - would the public know to look in the file of a later application for a priority claim? There is some case law on this (T341/04), but on the exam, you have no time to look it up and read it. If you get this far, then you will get the points anyway, even if you cannot solve it completely..
This exam had two parts - this is always tricky because you do not know how to balance the time. The parts could be done completely separately, but this is not clear when reading the paper - a clear instruction on this in the paper (case 1 / case 2) would have been nice.
Crucial here was realising that Norway only joined the EPC on 1 Jan 2008. If you got this, you probably got most of the points.
I have looked at the DII solution, and compared it to my own answers I made in the office immediately after the exam. It was not an easy DII paper.
The first part was concerned with KA (Knowledge for All), who did not want KM (Knowledge is Money) to get a patent for EPKM that referred to EP1. The model solution proposes that KA abandons their earliest application (EP1) for the signal (EPKM not enabled as signal needed for invention), and pursues a later application (EP2) with a later effective date without claiming priority of the earliest application..
The DII exam is supposed to sketch a practical situation - I have never heard of a client who only files applications to block others, so it seems a little strange not to simply get your strongest right (the signal) granted and use it to block exploitation. However, the client has asked a specific question - can we stop KM from getting a a patent on a fishing method? On the exam, even if it seems a little strange, you should always answer the client's question FIRST. Then if you do not think this is the best course of action, you can propose something else BRIEFLY.
The model solution also states that claiming priority of EP1 with EP2 will enable EPKM because EP1 becomes publicly available. Although EP1 does become publicly available (Art.54(2)), this does not automatically mean that EPKM is enabled (Art.83). EPKM refers to EP1 by its number, including it by reference. If EP1 is withdrawn, the file will not be made public, so the skilled person will not be able to find EP1 by following the reference in EPKM.
The public has to be able to find it without undue burden T737/90 - would the public know to look in the file of a later application for a priority claim? There is some case law on this (T341/04), but on the exam, you have no time to look it up and read it. If you get this far, then you will get the points anyway, even if you cannot solve it completely..
This exam had two parts - this is always tricky because you do not know how to balance the time. The parts could be done completely separately, but this is not clear when reading the paper - a clear instruction on this in the paper (case 1 / case 2) would have been nice.
Crucial here was realising that Norway only joined the EPC on 1 Jan 2008. If you got this, you probably got most of the points.
Extra feedback for EQE 2010 Re-Sitters (Paper C and D)
Congratulations to those who passed at least something at the EQE 2010. Any exam passed is quite an achievement.
Remember that if you got 45-49 points at EQE 2010, you may not have to resit this paper if you are able to compensate with future attempts.
If you got 44 or less, then you must retake the paper.
For those who unfortunately failed C or D, we offer extra feedback to help face the preparation for EQE 2011.
The feedback from the examination committees is generally not enough to figure out where points were lost - you only get the marks per question as a marking sheet.
Under our Correction of EQE papers program, we offer correction of EQE 2010 C, DI and DII papers at the end of August 2010 to help re-sitters figure out what went wrong. We provide individual comments, suggestions for improvement, our own detailed marking sheet and our proprietary model solutions.
Remember that if you got 45-49 points at EQE 2010, you may not have to resit this paper if you are able to compensate with future attempts.
If you got 44 or less, then you must retake the paper.
For those who unfortunately failed C or D, we offer extra feedback to help face the preparation for EQE 2011.
The feedback from the examination committees is generally not enough to figure out where points were lost - you only get the marks per question as a marking sheet.
Under our Correction of EQE papers program, we offer correction of EQE 2010 C, DI and DII papers at the end of August 2010 to help re-sitters figure out what went wrong. We provide individual comments, suggestions for improvement, our own detailed marking sheet and our proprietary model solutions.
SHARE:
The results for D (EQE 2010) are known
As most candidates will already know, the EPO has changed its way of communicating the results of the EQE. Instead of a secure website where every candidate can find his own results after entering a password, they decided to make all results public. On the EPO-website you can find all results of all EQE candidates of 2010. Click here for all results.
And of course, we are exploiting this opportunity to do some statistical analysis. The first results for D covering all candidates (both first time and resitters):
And of course, we are exploiting this opportunity to do some statistical analysis. The first results for D covering all candidates (both first time and resitters):
candidates | 1279 | |
average | 41 | |
% | ||
0-44 | 51 | |
45-49 | 10 | |
50-100 | 39 |
SHARE:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
