Should you need at least a 4-year scientific degree to be a patent attorney?

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/11/should-you-need-at-least-4-year.html

Earlier this year, the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (epi) proposed a radical raising of the admission requirements for the European patent attorney qualifying examinations (EQEs). Epi proposed that, to maintain the quality of European patents, there should be no admission to the EQE without at least a 4 year scientific degree. 

The epi proposal specifically called for restriction of the EQE to candidates with “a technical/scientific master or diploma (better PhD) degree of at least 4 better 5 years full time university“. The first and most obvious problem with this proposal, so far as this Kat can see, is that a longer degree does not mean a better degree. 

Unsurprisingly, the epi proposal has been met with dismay and consternation by the patent profession. The Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) Working Group of epi have submitted their fundamental objection to the proposal, arguing that it is incompatible with the epi Policy on Diversity and Inclusion. The D&I working group concluded that the proposal “is discriminatory, divisive, and, most of all, it does not address any real issue of quality or public interest”. 
Excluded from the profession
CIPA is also up in arms about the proposal and have recently published their own strongly worded response. CIPA particularly agree with the D&I working group that the proposal would “needlessly exclude large swathes of potential recruits to the profession right across Europe. We also do not believe that there is any proven problem with the status quo and feel that decisions about the suitability and qualifications of applicants are best left to employers”. 

The technical and scientific knowledge required to be a competent patent attorney will, of course, vary between technical fields. Mechanical inventions are generally considered understandable by all, and so form the basis of the qualifying examinations. Far more specialist knowledge is required to understand inventions in, for example, the software and biotech fields. In fields heavily reliant on experimental data it is also valuable to have at least some lab experience.

However, a longer university degree is not the only, or even necessarily the best, way of obtaining specialist knowledge in a technical field. The most useful specialist knowledge within a technical area will in fact often be obtained during patent training itself. Far more important is a scientific mindsight. Furthermore, as argued by the D&I working group: “whether their attorney does or does not understand the technical aspects of an invention is something the client can actually judge for themselves. Clients don’t tend to be concerned about how many degrees or other qualifications their patent attorney has; the client will judge whether the attorney can listen and communicate ideas clearly, and whether they can match their advice and drafting to the client’s commercial goals“. 

In the face of such obvious and well-argued opposition, it would seem crazy for the EPO to follow the epi proposal. However, the epi proposal was purportedly made in response, at least in part, to the EPO’s own decision to make a Master’s level education compulsory for EPO Examiners. The epi proposal is also clearly made in the context of the EPO’s focus on patent quality, given that the epi article itself is entitled “All about Patent Quality”. Notably, “all about Patent Quality” also appears to be behind the EPO’s controversial and intransigent stance on adaptation of the description, judging from Steve Rowan’s presentation at CIPA congress this year. Those opposed to the epi proposal may have very good reason to worry. 

Please keep comments polite! 

Image credit: DALLE-3

Content reproduced from The IPKat as permitted under the Creative Commons Licence (UK).