The IPKat brings you more decisions from the EPO Boards of Appeal, kindly provided by Darren Smyth of Marks & Clerk. This time it's decisons of the Disciplinary Board of Appeal, posted on 25 May:
D decisions are from the Disciplinary Board of Appeal, and while they may relate to matters of professional misconduct, they usually relate to disputes over the European qualifying examination. Whilst perhaps not of interest to the wider legal community, they are closely studied by those wishing to take the European qualifying examination. Usually the decisions relate to cases where candidates challenge the marks awarded, and in these cases the appeals are almost always unsuccessful. This decision is about whether the candidate has the necessary qualifications to take the examination at all, and the decision is very critical of the practice of the Examination Secretariat. The decision appears to require that the Examination Secretariat change its practice to publish the lists of A qualifications (which under Article 2 of the Instructions concerning the qualifications required for enrolment for the European qualifying examination automatically entitle the applicant to sit the EQE) and B qualifications (which under Article 3 require a further three years experience in the patent or another appropriate field). We await with interest to see what changes the Examination Secretariat will make.
In another criticism of the practice of the Examination Secretariat, the Board of Appeal apparently finds unacceptable the requirement that applications for enrolment for the EQE submitted by fax must be confirmed in hard copy within one month, and that failure to receive the confirmation copy results in the candidate’s application for enrolment not being allowed, without any advance notice of the non-receipt of the confirmation copy being sent to the applicant. Again, it would appear that the Examination Secretariat may need to change its practice in the light of this decision.