http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/09/uk-patent-exams-essential-information.html
The essential information for candidates of the UK patent exams has now been released. The information has been provided on the PEB website and can be read here. This information is likely to be the last official information candidates will receive from the PEB on how the exams will be run. We have also now received the results of the FD4/P6 survey from last week’s UK patent exam update.
Essential information
In the latest exam information we finally learn how long the exam will be. 5 minutes is provided every hour for screen breaks. 20 minutes is provided for downloading, printing and scanning. It is still unclear whether the screen breaks will be discretionary or enforced.
The system has apparently been tested by PEB and CIPA staff, patent attorneys and senior examiners. Candidates are required to take part in a trial of the system in the week commencing 21st September. There will be no opportunity for changes to be made to the system before the exam in response to candidate feedback.
| Designated Contacts should not eat crunchy food |
A 22 page document providing instructions for Designated Contacts has also now been provided. The document provides information on how to declare potential conflicts of interest and the level of supervision that will be required, e.g. invigilators must give full attention to invigilation and should not read or do work. It is unclear whether candidates who go to the toilet must be accompanied (compare first bullet point on page 7 and second bullet point of 3.2).
Designated Contacts will have 30 minutes to print and distribute a copy of the exam paper to all the candidates at their venue. If the start of the exam is delayed, extra time will not be given at the end of the exam.
Results of FD4/P6 survey
In a previous IPKat post, we provided a link to a brief informal survey on FD4/P6. This survey was created by Katfriend Asawari Churi (Pinsent Masons) in order to collate opinions of this particularly controversial exam. The survey ran for just under two weeks, but received more than 70 responses from qualified or part-qualified attorneys. The full results of the survey can be viewed here.
Many of the respondents to the survey believe that the FD4/P6 needs a major rethink. A majority (58%) of respondents believed that the exam does not test fitness to practice. Indeed, there was a not-insignificant proportion of respondents (28%) who knew someone who had passed FD4/P6 “when they were clearly not fit to practice”. On this note, the model answers recently provided for candidates are a beautiful illustration of how passing the exam depends not on fitness to practice, but on mastering a peculiar FD4/P6 exam technique. A model answer script for FD4/P6 bears little to no resemblance to a real-life freedom to operate opinion.
| FD4/P6 attempt |
A very pertinent point raised in the IPKat comments last week was that it would be impossible for the model answer to be written in the time allotted for FD4/P6. Writing the answer would take someone writing at an average writing speed over 8 hours to complete. A superhuman writing speed would be required to write the answer in 2-3 hours as required in the exam (the approximate amount of time available for writing in the 5 hour FD4/P6). The model answers are not supposed to be perfect answers but are supposed to provide candidates with an example of “the level of detail and reasoning required” in the FD4/P6 exam. However, even allowing for the longer format of the model answer than might be expected in an answer script that uses abbreviations and symbols, having enough time to get even 50% of the marks would still be a stretch for a candidate with average writing speed.
Many of the comments provided in the survey are thoughtful and constructive. It will be interesting to see how the survey results compare with the full findings of the Mercer Review when these become available. CIPA has indicated that we may get an update on the Mercer Review in October. The Mercer Review aims to look at the broader question of patent attorney training and education. However, given that there is undoubtedly a serious problem with FD4/P6 (as not only this survey but also the numerous comments on IPKat testify), the hope is that FD4/P6 will be a topic of particular focus for Chris Mercer, the chair of the Mercer Review.
As always, please keep comments civil.
Content reproduced from The IPKat as permitted under the Creative Commons Licence (UK).