http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/03/epo-declares-eeqe-format-went-very.html
Last week the European Qualifying Exams (EQEs) for patent attorneys were held online for the first time. The EPO has now released a statement, declaring the digital EQE a “success”. The considerable achievement of getting the eEQE up and running in time for the exams this year should be recognised. However, the EPO’s positive summary is at odds with the reported experience of many candidates during the examination week, and has been criticised by some for not being sensitive to candidates’ concerns. The EPO’s message on the first eEQE also came before the window for candidate feedback had closed.
“Smooth” is a relative term
From the EPO’s perspective the new format ran “very smoothly“. However, there were reports of software issues throughout the week, which are not mentioned in the EPO statement (as summarised over on the Salt Patent blog). It seems the LockDown Browser and WiseFlow were both clunky and temperamental, particularly at the stage of submitting your answer. To this Kat, it seems that the system is very much a work-in-progress as opposed to a final product.
| EQE candidate at the end of examination week |
The EPO acknowledges the issues with Paper D1.1. This paper was initially only available to candidates in German, which was not much use to most English and French speaking candidates (IPKat: A chaotic start to the eEQEs). According to the EPO statement, the issue with Paper D1.1 “was solved quickly within a few minutes“. Unfortunately, gaining access to the missing papers required candidates to refresh the page, contrary to the previous instructions given to candidates that they should avoid refreshing the browser during the exam (User Guide, 6.4.2). Many candidates therefore waited until they received instructions from their invigilator to refresh the browser. However, the invigilators were clearly overloaded by requests, and it was another 30 minutes before some candidates reported gaining access to the correct paper. There have also been reports of some candidates, not knowing what else to do, closing the system, attempting to log back in, and failing to do so (and thus being prevented from taking the exam).
On the day after Paper D, the Examination Board released a 3-line statement that it is “aware of a disruption affecting paper D1.1 and guarantees that no candidate will be disadvantaged as a result during the marking process“. Part of the challenge will be addressing the spectrum of different problems experienced by candidates: Some candidates were able to access their paper straightaway, some within a few minutes, some within half an hour and some not at all (e.g. if they made the mistake of logging out of the system). Extra time was awarded at the end of the paper, but some candidates were then locked out of the system prematurely.
Another complication is of course the ongoing stress and anxiety that the worst affected candidates would have experienced. Following Paper D1.1, there were 2 more papers to sit that day. The deadline for reporting issues with the exams was also the end of the same day. For some candidates, the evening would therefore have been spent preparing and sending this report instead of preparing for the next day’s exam.
For candidates who submitted comments to the Examination Secretariat, the EPO has issued a notice that these will be forwarded to the Examination Board (with no individual acknowledgement of receipt).
Lessons to be learnt
The EPO should be thanked for putting in a system that at least enabled candidates to take the examinations this year. The EQEs were cancelled at short notice last year, just as the true scale of the coronavirus pandemic was becoming apparent (IPKat). A digital EQE was certainly more preferable than further delay.
A digital EQE also has its advantages. At the very least, the environmental benefits of not forcing candidates to print a suitcase worth of case law, guidelines and legal texts can not be ignored. A digital EQE also avoids the stress, time and cost associated with travelling to the exam venue (the chill of Walsall football stadium is probably not going to be missed by many), not to mention the peculiar oddity of ensuring your exam scissors do not have “blades longer than 6 cm (as measured from the fulcrum)”.
However, in this Kat’s opinion it is also important for the EPO to acknowledge the issues with the eEQE this year, if they are to avoid the same issues in the future. Comments from candidates (see e.g. DeltaPatents) reveal a great deal of dissatisfaction with the system and how it was run. The EPO’s statement does not acknowledge or address these concerns, and downplays the impact of the particular issue in Paper D1.1. It is also apparent that the examination papers (particularly Papers B and C) were even more challenging than usual this year, suggesting that they had not undergone the same scrutiny as in previous years, and included a number of errors (e.g. mis-numbered questions). This Kat will be monitoring developments and looks forward to seeing how the EPO will address these issues.
Content reproduced from The IPKat as permitted under the Creative Commons Licence (UK).