UK trainee patent attorneys are due to receive the results of their PEB Qualifying Examinations on Monday (4 March 2019). Candidates who took the FD4 (P6, Infringement and Validity) today received notification that the pass mark of this year's paper has been reduced to 47% (from 50%) in view of a significant drop in candidates achieving a pass mark.
The full letter is as follows:
FD4 (P6) is notoriously difficult. Many patent attorneys fail the examination multiple times, even after becoming fully qualified European Patent Attorneys. The five hour exam requires candidates to read and understand a patent specification, construe all of the claims and produce an infringement and validity opinion in view of ~3 prior art documents and a description of a potentially infringing product. One of the primary difficulties is finishing the paper. Many candidates employ their own language of symbols to save valuable seconds when writing their answer scripts.
From anecdotal reports, it seems that this year, time was particularly constrained. There were 2 independent claims to different products and multiple embodiment of the potentially infringing product. The invention was also not a simple one to understand. This year's paper was arguably made even more challenging by the introduction on the syllabus for the first time of the principles of the doctrine of equivalents as established by Lord Neuberger in Actavis v Eli Lilly (which even UK judges are still working out how to apply...). The PEB did not side-step this issue but included an infringing embodiment that clearly required a consideration of equivalents.
The letter from the PEB mentions that this year's pass rate is statistically lower that the mean of the past 4 years (41%). Given that this average includes the low pass rate of 2015 ("Insect Trap") of 38%, this begs the question of how low the original pass rate was this year, lower than the 36% of 2012 ("Clothes Dryer Cover")? At least this year, it seems that the PEB appear are making some attempt at redress.
Issues with P6 have been previously recognized. In 2015 ("Insect Trap"), the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) of the Patent Examination Board (PEB), recommended to the PEB that they investigate the poor candidate success rate over a number of years in the P6 examination. This resulted in an investigation by Middlesex University, published here. The report took the form of a questionnaire of candidates and tutors. There were "mixed views" about the fairness of the FD4/P6 exam in terms of the technical content (i.e. whether it is biased towards those with a mechanical training), the adequacy of tutor support, and "whether the FD4/P6 exam appropriately tests knowledge and skills in infringement and validity".
Following today's letter, P6 candidates have a nervous weekend ahead of them. The letter also comes at the unfortunate time of the first day of the European Qualifying Examinations (EQEs).
The IPKat wishes everyone the best of luck!
Update (4 March 2019): According to the Examiner's Report, the pass rate this year , even once the pass mark was reduced to 47%, was 33.8%. The Report does not explore the reasons why the pass rate was so low this year. However, this Kat speculates that the low pass rate was due to the unusually high number of marks allocated to Inventive Step (25 marks) compared to the relatively low number of marks allocated to Infringement (14 marks).
The full letter is as follows:
"Dear Candidate
You will shortly receive the results for the PEB Final examination(s) that you took in October 2018.
At the Awarding meeting for Final Diploma examinations, analysis of marks showed that there was a statistically significant fall in the pass rate for the FD4 examination compared to the mean pass rate for the years 2014-2017 (41%). This fall may be a result of the technical content of the examination paper.
It was therefore decided to determine the pass mark for the FD4 exam by ‘borderlining’. Starting with a scripts with a mark of 49 and working down, scripts are reviewed to determine whether these scripts meet the ‘minimum pass descriptor’(1). The process stops at the mark where there is secure evidence that scripts do not meet the ‘minimum pass descriptor’. As a result of this process, the pass mark was judged to be 47 by contrast to the normal pass mark of 50.
PEB applies thorough and detailed quality assurance processes when question papers are produced, including review by experienced patent attorneys and pre-testing. Unfortunately, on this occasion, the FD4 issue was not identified. We would like to reassure you that PEB is fully reviewing its procedures with a view to minimising the likelihood of this happening again.
Please accept our apologies that this has occurred and for any distress that might have been caused to you.
(1) The Marking of Qualifying Examinations (Appendix 1) (http://www.cipa.org.uk/patent-examination-board/communications/general-communications/)"
 |
| Awaiting P6 results |
From anecdotal reports, it seems that this year, time was particularly constrained. There were 2 independent claims to different products and multiple embodiment of the potentially infringing product. The invention was also not a simple one to understand. This year's paper was arguably made even more challenging by the introduction on the syllabus for the first time of the principles of the doctrine of equivalents as established by Lord Neuberger in Actavis v Eli Lilly (which even UK judges are still working out how to apply...). The PEB did not side-step this issue but included an infringing embodiment that clearly required a consideration of equivalents.
The letter from the PEB mentions that this year's pass rate is statistically lower that the mean of the past 4 years (41%). Given that this average includes the low pass rate of 2015 ("Insect Trap") of 38%, this begs the question of how low the original pass rate was this year, lower than the 36% of 2012 ("Clothes Dryer Cover")? At least this year, it seems that the PEB appear are making some attempt at redress.
Issues with P6 have been previously recognized. In 2015 ("Insect Trap"), the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) of the Patent Examination Board (PEB), recommended to the PEB that they investigate the poor candidate success rate over a number of years in the P6 examination. This resulted in an investigation by Middlesex University, published here. The report took the form of a questionnaire of candidates and tutors. There were "mixed views" about the fairness of the FD4/P6 exam in terms of the technical content (i.e. whether it is biased towards those with a mechanical training), the adequacy of tutor support, and "whether the FD4/P6 exam appropriately tests knowledge and skills in infringement and validity".
Following today's letter, P6 candidates have a nervous weekend ahead of them. The letter also comes at the unfortunate time of the first day of the European Qualifying Examinations (EQEs).
The IPKat wishes everyone the best of luck!
Update (4 March 2019): According to the Examiner's Report, the pass rate this year , even once the pass mark was reduced to 47%, was 33.8%. The Report does not explore the reasons why the pass rate was so low this year. However, this Kat speculates that the low pass rate was due to the unusually high number of marks allocated to Inventive Step (25 marks) compared to the relatively low number of marks allocated to Infringement (14 marks).
BREAKING: 2018 FD4 (P6 - Infringement and Validity) Pass Mark Reduced
Reviewed by Rose Hughes
on
Tuesday, February 26, 2019
Rating:
Reviewed by Rose Hughes
on
Tuesday, February 26, 2019
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
Kind of the PEB to send this out just in time for EQE candidates to read it coming out of Paper D.
ReplyDeleteI thought the point of releasing the UK results after the EQEs was so that UK candidates didn't have this extra worry hanging over them.
An apology, without full explanation of how this failure occurred, is inadequate for candidates. Candidates career progression is reliant on securing a pass in these exams- catastrophic failures of the examination system cannot be simply dismissed as a "bad year".
ReplyDeleteYet more evidence, if it were needed, that the PEB exams are not fit for purpose.
ReplyDeleteExamining relatively simple concepts at a hundred miles an hour in a closed book exam can't honestly indicate a fitness to practice. If the PEB can just turn their dial down to 47 and use a made-up phrase as an excuse, the exam can't seriously be considered anything except an arbitrary barrier to entry for the 60% of candidates with the slowest handwriting.
No surprises there. I was particularly amused by the article in the CIPA journal that displayed the no. of people failing using green bar charts. Ah yes, what's that tall green bar? Something positive? Nope. Number of people that have failed. Awesome.
ReplyDeleteYet again the PEB acts with complete impunity; its very own cartel. Who will be held responsible for this debacle?! What assurances can be made the exam will ever improve? The damning report by Middlesex University concluded this exam isn't fit for purpose and since then the PEB has done nothing to fix this problem. Meanwhile the time and money of exam candidates continues to be wasted.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone think "borderlining" will somehow make the exam fair? It clearly won't make it fair - they should be offering refunds or free resits.
ReplyDeleteRefunds and financial compensation for wasted time might begin to motivate the PEB to improve this joke of an exam paper.
ReplyDeleteSending this out in the middle of the EQEs is deplorable. What part of "candidates don't want to hear about UKs until after the EQEs" do the PEB not understand?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately the PEB will make a killing from this. There will be plenty of appeals that they can reject with minimal effort because the candidate didn't meet the "minimum pass descriptor", which is literally a saying that they've invented in order to (a) sound like they know how to set exams and understand assessment criteria (cf Middlesex Review findings) and (b) use to revert to "finger in the air" marking as and when they want to. The exam is about 2 decades past its sell-by date and so are the examiners.
ReplyDeletePEB is a complete joke.
ReplyDeleteThe UK exams are a complete joke.
Only a way to prevent people entering the profession and a way to keep wages low for very skilled people who are brilliant at their jobs daily.
It's such a shame that PEB cannot look at the EPO for example in how to run the profession. PEB do not provide decent training materials online, produce papers that are nearly impossible to pass. At least the EPO provide decent training materials, fair papers and give students time in an exam to enable them to pass.
It's clear that PEB has lost all credibility with the UK exams especially P6.
ReplyDeleteWhy announced this during EQE. Lack of understanding and empathy from PEB once more. PEB is clearly NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE.
If the UK firms stand up to PEB then the profession might be a better place. Not exam driven and actually focus on making good attorneys.
I think PEB make these exams hard on purpose so that people have to retake - which increases their revenue.
ReplyDeleteComplete lack of credibility from PEB. I don't trust these exams. So what if you pass them, it does not demonstrate you can still do the job. I don't see the point in the UK finals - I really don't.
People will lose jobs and their careers as a result of these exams thanks to PEB's incompetent. Some firms won't pay for resist and yet PEB feels the need to increase their exam fees 20% every year leaving candidates unable to afford it on their own and also hitting them hard with no or little pay rise. No wonder UK patent attorneys get paid less than their fellow professional around the world.
ReplyDeleteCome on PEB - its time you actually do something about these exams. Get rid of them or shift it to a university where all students benefit from the same training, materials and learning. It's such a joke.
But knowing PEB, they won't take any notice of this or change anything off course. It will be the same in years to come.
I also know that a lot of people drop out of the profession because of PEB's exams. It's the sheer incompetence of PEB that is worrying. More worryingly, PEB don't seem to care or take any notice of candidates concerns. These exams cannot be such a huge barrier for a person to become an attorney.
ReplyDeleteWhat will end up happening is that more people will do the job without the CPA title. So if you ask me, these exams offer no or little benefit to the profession.
Absolute joke and so so furious. People spend 6-8 months preparing for these exams with no reward.
ReplyDeletePie in the sky stuff from PEB. They can't set an exam, can't follow guidelines/findings from Middlesex university, can't take feedback on-board, can't mark exams properly, can't change and won't change.
It's time for PEB to close. Either set these test through coursework or get it to a university like the foundations. PEB are wasting everyone's time and money.
The document issued by PEB "The Marking of Qualifying Examinations" makes no reference to how the examinations should be marked when there is an "issue" in the examination paper (some clarity on what the issue was, how it happened and what exactly the detriment to candidates is would be helpful information that appears entirely absent from PEBs email).
ReplyDeleteThe "Minimum Pass Descriptor" is stated to be used for borderline candidates- there is absolutely no indication this is an appropriate method for marking candidates in this scenario. Indeed, there is no indication that this marking parameter would be used at all when the paper is flawed- how can candidates have any certainty on what the goalposts being used are? PEB appear to have used this marking parameter with zero consideration for applicability and consequence.
Yet more evidence that the UK exams and the PEB are not fit for purpose. I for one will not be taking them again until the underlying issues are resolved, however long that may take. No point in rewarding useless examiners by paying them to write drivel every year!
ReplyDeleteThese exams used to be the gold standard. Now they are an utter joke. Given the UK won't be participating in the UPC post Brexit (it won't, it really won't), then candidates really have to nail their EQE's and get out of the UK.
ReplyDeleteI cannot believe PEB has let this happen, it leaves an already suspect system in utter disrepute.
Asides from the terrible timing of this letter (what difference would it have made if they waited until the end of the week?), I don't see this as particularly bad news. Having the pass mark at 50% every year seems a bit arbitrary to me. It is impossible to make two exams exactly as difficult as each other and so it is unfair to have a consistent pass mark of 50%. It is clear that in previous years candidates were simply unlucky if they were handed a particularly difficult exam. At least shifting the pass mark goes some way to removing the luck of the draw.
ReplyDeleteI agree, it IS reasonable to adjust the pass mark so that the same proportion pass each year - assuming sufficient numbers sit the exam (and that may be a big assumption). Statistically, broadly the same number proportion should be passing each year.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult if not impossible in many exams (unless the answers are multiple choice) to set it so the pass mark is the same each year.
Descriptor is a word banded around in university marking - not saying I understand it - but it is used.
And sticking the name "university" on it does not guarantee that some of the issues raised would be solved. Universities DO adjust the pass marks and look at the cohort and see what percentage is passing each year before deciding who gets to pass. I believe its called bench marking. Is the PEB simply being open about what it does (or trying to be more open?)
I am not saying the PEB has got it right, but constructive, insightful criticism would be more helpful from respected commentators and colleagues.
These UK exams are becoming too much of a joke. I hate to say it but the UK patent exams are becoming a bit of a laughing stock.
ReplyDeleteWe are not producing enough UK qualified attorneys and this is solely down to PEB and their examination system. No credibility! How can we trust PEB.
It would be funny except that people lose their training, jobs and careers over these exams.
ReplyDeleteOff course we are talking about candidates having take exams for another year. It will affect them, their families and their firms. But we all know PEB do not care for their candidates. They set an exam every year so most candidates will fail.
ReplyDeleteI think its time to change the mind-set and the mentality of this profession. We want to focus on making great attorneys and I do not believe these exams provide this. It does the opposite effect - it holds back candidates for years and years and stop their progression.
Will IPKAT voice their opinion to PEB?
My belief is that PEB and the examiners do not seem to have sufficient time to actually set a good exam. I believe all examiners are patent attorneys who have other roles in their daily life.
ReplyDeleteI think its time we look at other options such as coursework and/or university style exams. I just think these exams are really out of date with the modern candidate. PEB haven't got it right for the last 5-10 years now.
After the shambles of this year, PEB will find another reason to increase exam fees yet again by another 20%. I think the firms should be taking more of a stance. Surely, all that training and dedication to their colleagues with no end sight. I agree with some of the others. I think its time UK exams are done within university. Every year there seems to be a problem with these exams i.e. no desks in 2016, exam venues, marking quality, mistakes in the paper in 2017. There seems to be endless things wrong about them and its becoming difficult to justify the worthiness of these UK exams.
ReplyDelete"PEB is recommended to actively engage with the findings of the research project on the Infringement and Validity (FD4/P6) examination and, in particular, take appropriate action to consider observations made about the marking scheme, the nature and purpose of the examination and the intended learning outcomes candidates are required to demonstrate" - Recommendation provided in the independent External Assurance Review of the Policies, Procedures and Processes of the Patent Examination Board.
ReplyDeleteGood to see PEB have really taken on board the suggestions of the external review ......
When I sat the UK exams in 1999 or thereabouts the pass rate for P6 was 14% (and it was 18% for P2).
ReplyDeleteRegarding all the comments mentioning a review by a university and/or how a university would allegedly conduct these exams better, I think we should bear in mind that of late many universities approach to student assessment appears to involve massively inflating the number of first class degrees awarded etc.
ReplyDeletePEB need to be much more transparent.
ReplyDeletePublishing anonymous scores, with their associated PEB markers identified by a number, would be a good start and address a lot of very common fears (some of which are expressed in whispers by FD4 markers themselves).
There is simply no room, in a modern inclusive profession, for a cabal of the old guard delaying qualification of any candidates who do not write in the manner they prefer (and their preferred manner is not that of those actually routinely involved in advising in contentious issues)
It is also hard to shake the belief that the only reason PEB are even adjusting the pass mark is that otherwise one of the very few stats that they do release (pass rates) would contradict their view as recently presented in the CIPA journal.
As can be seen from the numerous comment on here, it is clear that there is no confidence in PEB's fitness to assess candidates. So what can be done? Are we to simply vent our frustrations on here and then get on with our day? Or can we actually do something about it?
ReplyDeleteFor a start, PEB should offer free resits for FD4 this year.
Secondly, a major overhaul of the examination system is required. If PEB cannot do so, I am sure Queen Mary will be happy to offer certificate courses for the advanced papers like they do for the foundation papers at present. This will level the playing field for all trainees seeing as it is well known that there is a huge variability in training at different firms.
Will someone senior and in a more powerful position agree to take on this task?
I really think PEB needs to modernise the exams. Pass marks have been low historically and is still low now. Why?
ReplyDeleteAre we trying to cap the number of attorneys and giving firms excuses not keep pay packets low because candidates can't pass these artificial exams.
In other professions such as accountancy, solicitors real-life work projects counts towards qualification. I think it is time patents change to adapt to the modern world. PEB is in danger of becoming a dinosaur.
Fundamentally, the question is whether PEB is fit for purpose in this modern age. I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comments above that it should be shifted to a university style exam or practical (work-on real life projects & experience like they have in some other sectors) assessments. I'm also a bit concern by the low salary UK patent attorneys attract compared to their peers in Europe and around the world. I think these exams do put a cap on salary. For example, a candidate who had to retake the exams 4 or 5 times, will get inflation salary increases and when they pass, will only be considered as a newly qualified attorney - despite the vast amount of experience they've obtained. Whereas, someone else with 4 to 5 years IP experience will be considered an experience professional.
Can I comment that the PEB exams have very poor training.
ReplyDeleteFor foundations, you get the benefit that all students have the same materials, lectures and basis for learning. The EPO makes enormous effort to provide training materials through online portals, EPO academy.
PEB - 1 CIPA seminar on a topic with powerpoint presentations in 1 hour. You can't pass on just that.
Furthermore, I like to add that advanced papers are so heavily reliant on the firms. More particularly, on their qualified patent attorneys. The qualified attorneys have billable targets and other pressures. They are not going to waste their time to teach trainees. That's not what they are trained to do and most of them don't have the time or energy to do it.
Time to move these exams to university or provide assessments. But I don't think PEB will listen to any useful advice to bring this profession to the modern age for modern candidates. They keep referring back to their old days in the 1990s. We are in 2019 - time to move on!
As a recently qualified UK attorney, I do wholeheartedly believe that the PEB exams hold back candidates especially P2 and P6. It took me 7 years to get my UK (4 years for EQE). I MUST say that I'm on a newly qualified attorney wage even though I have a vast amount of experience. PEB exams has really harmed my career progression (not enhanced them).
ReplyDeleteHow can we end this complete reliance on exams (no experiences or work taken into account whatsoever). I agree that this should be set within university where they can actually provide decent training and proper examination. Firms and senior attorneys need to use their voices for colleagues.
PEB are going to increase fees again - surely its now worth paying for a university course/exam and you know you get what you pay for.
I would love IPKAT to reflect this to PEB (if you can find them). PEB will probably only publish in the CIPA journal the comments they like but I hope you can try.
ReplyDeletePEB exams needs updating. Its clear for everyone to see. It needs to be sustainable so university is a very good option. Just consider alternatives ways rather than holding back candidates career's progression.
The UK exams are losing value and credibility. Its restricting perfectly well enabled candidates from qualifying. Its a shame but the UK PEB exams are losing it and that's worrying. The value is fading which is sad to see.
ReplyDeleteNo matter how much preparation, a candidate cannot guarantee a pass for P6 / FD4. This is not right. It's a strong indicator that the exam is not fit for purpose.
ReplyDeleteI don't think some of these comments are realistic.
ReplyDeleteThose implying that there is some sort of upper echelon of patent attorneys desperate to keep new attorneys out of their club by making the exams mysterious and unfair are peddling a conspiracy theory. It is in the interest of those in the "upper echelons" to pass new attorneys, since qualified attorneys are the most valuable commodity which private practices (who are owned by the upper echelons) possess. Who on Earth benefits from failing competent attorneys?
Those implying that the PEB or the Examiners are looking to milk money out of candidates by repeat-failing them are also peddling nonsense, or at least peddling unsubstantiated and probably uninformed assertions. It is doubtful that Examiners, whom are all qualified and generally senior attorneys, get paid anywhere near their "attorney pay rate" in relation to the work they carry out examining. As for the PEB itself, if it were to be sitting on a pile of cash, I suspect this could be readily uncovered. I don't think there are PEB staff spending 9 months of the year on their own private islands in the Caribbean.
Those suggesting that the Finals exam system could be properly handled by a University are ignoring the essential fact that the Finals exams are fundamentally "fitness to practice" tests, and that only an individual (or more specifically a group of individuals) who themselves are fit to practice can realistically carry out the function of ascertaining such fitness to practice. A university professor in IP would have no experience in drafting or prosecuting patents, carrying out an I/V opinion or answering FD1 style problems in a commercially focused rather than legalistic way. There is absolutely no way in which a non-patent attorney could reasonably set or mark exams which would be fit for the purpose of assessing the fitness of candidates to practice as patent attorneys.
All that said, there are certainly reasonable criticisms which can be levelled at the UK exam system, and many of these are set out in these comments (albeit unfortunately mostly obscured by vitriol). Conceivably, the involvement of a university in administering the process could be beneficial, provided that the exams are not set and marked by academics. One problem is that those setting and marking the exams are not professional educators, and so the quality and rigor of the exams might be expected to be inferior to those set and marked by University staff, who are (I would assume) trained to educate and assess. In this sense, "perfect" examiners do not exist. Patent attorneys are not trained to set and mark exams, whereas educators lack the professional knowledge to assess fitness to practice as an attorney. The solution to all this? I've no idea.
I do think that the timing of the letter is very disappointing, but I suspect this was an oversight rather than an intention to distress anyone in the run up to the EQEs.
To the comments regarding the exams being a fitness to practice test and the problems with Universities administering the tests, it appears that CITMA have overcome these issues with training trade mark attorneys through the Nottingham Law School Trade Mark Practice Course.
ReplyDeleteI've sat the UK & EQE finals and taken the Trade Mark practice course. The difference between the three in my opinion is the provision of proper training and materials.
I trained in a small firm whose attitude was that the UK finals were a lottery. They are completely incapable of providing the necessary training. I did not pass P2 until I had failed twice -enough times to qualify for the CIPA mentor scheme. I shouldn't have had to fail to become eligible to receive training and assistance.
There are qualified UK patent attorneys who are involved with providing training in Universities. I'd urge the PEB to find them and speak with them or for CIPA to look at how training for the EQE's is provided and implement similar schemes for the UK finals.
To address the University point above, I think one way to go would be to have a requirement that trainees have been trained under a supervising attorney for at least 3(?) years before going on the finals course. The onus will be on the firms to provide adequate training to the trainees in those 3 years.
ReplyDeleteAnother option is for patent attorneys to teach on the course. As they do for the EQE pre-exam course, for example. Which, by the way, is fantastic.
I've just thought of a brilliant idea - you know how you can waive P3 and P4 if you have passed the EQEs? I think the waivers should extend to P2 and P6 as well!
ReplyDeleteHi.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the dreadful and poor quality training plus varying training some or if not most candidates receive in this profession. Some training experiences are so reliant on 1 or 2 attorneys who may not have the time to actually train the candidates properly.
Having a university style setting would go a long way to ensuring that all candidate benefit from the same training materials. I think its dangerous to simply dismiss alternative suggestions just because it has always been the "old fashion" way of examining.
I believe PEB needs to reform. Some of the exams are not realistic. I cannot see P6 being an exam a lot of attorneys would do in their day to day job especially within 5 hours. This type of work is commonly linked to projects where there are various input from all stakeholders so this is why coursework type assessment is also a valid point. We should welcome all opinions and alternatives because I personally don't think PEB exams are best for the profession any longer.
I'm afraid the perception of PEB limiting numbers of attorneys into the profession is unfortunate but you cannot help but wonder why the exams are so difficult even for highly qualified EQE attorneys and well experienced candidates in the IP profession. The problem with this profession is that it is very dependent on exams and that no experiences are taken into account. IP inclusive survey seems to suggest that this is a concern amongst many trainees so it should not be taken lightly.
Its difficult to understand why PEB cannot be more open to alternatives ways of qualifying. The advanced exams are difficult and they should be but not to the point where candidates feel like its little or no value to them.
ReplyDeleteI think the best way is for PEB and a university to get together to sort out how advanced exams should be examined. What training and teachings are required. The EPO is far more advanced in this area and provide huge amount of online material. PEB should do something similar especially given their eye watering exam fee increases every year.
ReplyDeleteA university can help with many things but is not a panacea and may have multiple problems of its own like grade inflation and financial pressures that would have nothing whatsoever to do with how good candidates are in reality.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that if the EPO materials etc. are good, perhaps these could be built on for UK practice and examination by an accredited and properly monitored university course?
However, University academics cannot judge fitness to practice (unless these are ex practitioners). It is a mistake to suggest they can.
Is there a way of assessing fitness to practice separately from a diet of knowledge based examinations? Interview perhaps by two patent attorneys examining a body of work prepared by the trainee like chartered engineers do to gain charter-ship (it really is not a walk in the park to become a chartered engineer). Might this approach be an improvement? - discuss!
I have never known of a senior patent attorney who deliberately kept a trainee down. It seems I do not get out much perhaps, judging by the frankly disheartening comments here.
Lets not forget, many senior patent attorneys work hard and try hard to help trainees. Please let's appreciate and not alienate that cohort - because as one poster says above, being an examiner is not well recompensed for the time spent as I understand it, and trainers receive little reward within firms.
I am very grateful to those who spent time with me (and yes I was very sad from time to time with the amount of red pen - but I learnt.)
I find it hard to believe the exams are a lottery but many posters here would disagree. But lets face it a pass mark of 50% is not high. I assume marking schemes are developed and published after the fact, they used to be.
A very useful bit of advice from one senior patent attorney was - assume I am right, now figure out why - that pulled me up short and it led me to go back to first principles and re-evaluate what I was doing/learning/thinking etc. I still keep it I mind and still learn from all those around me.
I am sorry so many trainees seem to be having such a hard time.
"If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them" Henry Thoreau
The EQE are very difficult exams but they do provide fantastic help and support along with affordable training materials and courses. The training for pre-Eqe are ran by attorneys so you get practical knowledge. It's great. The EQE has its faults but it is far superior to anything that PEB provides.
ReplyDeleteI hope senior and qualified attorneys would help and set up a course similar to pre-Eqe and Paper D for P2 and P6. That would be fantastic. Candidates would also find it more relatable.
I would also suggest that PEB shift the exams a bit earlier to September to allow candidates sufficient time to prepare EQE but that's a separate issue.
Or do not take the examinations one after the other, have a break. Concentrate on the EQEs, then take the UKs.
DeleteI also think outsourcing training for advanced papers to a university or similiar for example is a very good idea. It at least give candidates in smaller firms where training resources are not readily available much needed support.
ReplyDeleteBy all means, it should be taught by qualified attorneys but the current PEB structure doesn't seem to fit too well at the moment. There is clearly some training differences and questions raised about the papers. Exploring this avenue is not a bad thing and should be looked at.
Which university are you thinking of? Which university has expertise in patent drafting, infringement and validity?
DeleteAbsolutely agree that most senior attorneys like to help. One of the issues however is the difference candidates received so finding a way to provide uniform training and consistent level of testing would only be beneficial for everyone.
ReplyDeleteI must say it doesn't install great confidence where they set the exam so hard that they have to lower the pass mark. PEB have at least 2 years to design the paper so I am surprise by this announcement.
One credible solution is for PEB to launch a consultation for trainees, attorneys and attorney firms for opinions on some of these points.
ReplyDeleteA university style examination system but taught and tested by qualified attorneys
A coursework based project that is tested.
Quality of Training and development such as those similar to EQE.
A wider issue of the profession linked to exams. Some firms have a cap on the number of resits they would be willing to pay. For example, my firm will only pay for one resit and we are not allowed to take any study leave. Is there anyway to solve this. It costs an individual alot of money and leave time but for a firm, I suspect its not going to break their bank account.
ReplyDeleteMy question is whether PEB would consider lowering fees for resitters and individuals.
I also want to add - like everyone who has commented already, training and attitude to exams are so dependent on what firm you work for. A course or a university would go along way to resolve this although I am unsure if it is something PEB would consider.
All of the above comments are so disheartening. I suppose one must question whether it is necessary to qualify as a CPA at all.
ReplyDeleteThere are some very good suggestions in some of the comments. Take note, CIPA/PEB. You need to up your game because right now you come across as incompetent at best.
The university idea is excellent and the few criticisms made by some posters can be easily addressed. No one is suggesting that non-patent attorneys should examine the candidates. Moreover, if there is a work experience requirement in order to be eligible to register for the course, that will ensure that the candidates have the necessary exposure to patent practice. As is the case for the EQEs, there should be a supervisor sign off on the enrollment form confirming that they've trained the candidate for the requisite number of years. If the candidate still doesn't pass then the supervisor can share some of the blame. If you can't deal with this, don't be a supervisor. No more offering subpar training with impunity. There's just too much at stake.
Its very sad to read these comments about how people think of the PEB exams. I passed in 2012 and to be honest, I felt exactly the same when I was training. I don't believe PEB exams are fit for purpose. I felt the EQE provided more training and helped my professional career more than PEB exams. I used to just fear PEB exams and to be honest again, I didn't think I gained much by sitting P2 and P6.
ReplyDeleteI can see some value to P2 as you do learn how to apply the law but there is no better place to do that than doing your job. The problem I had was that I wasn't allowed to deal, interact or do anything with clients (even with supervision) until I passed P2. That begs the question of whether PEB exams hinders trainee's development or enhances their development. The former in my case.
As a lot of you have mentioned already, I never had to use the skills for P6 again (or not yet). 2012 was also the first year they introduced the pre-EQE and I learnt more from doing that then doing the PEB exams. I'm sorry, I know PEB exams have their merits but I would be willing to shift to a better model.
PEB exams don't carry the weight it used to carry in my opinion. They've managed to isolate large sections of the profession. PEB knows there are issues with the current examination system but we haven't heard any substantial changes. The only they did was to conduct a study on P6 pass rate which was good but I don't see any concrete steps to change.
ReplyDeleteI'm very supportive of the university style examination because it does provide fairer access for all. Studying for PEB exams can be very lonely and its also very difficult when you fail. University will have strong support network to help all candidates. I don't think PEB can provide this sort of mechanism.
PEB making the exams as hard as possible does not increase its value. It only alienates people and causes resentment. No one feels proud after passing an exam at the 6th attempt (which is my case). My whole career was put on hold because of 1 exam.
ReplyDeleteTime to shift these advanced exams to a university. It needs to be scrutinize but I believe this is the best way.
A popular theme here appears to be to shift to University-administered finals qualification exams.
ReplyDeleteA number of posts have suggested some benefits of this, but none have addressed the key issues:
(a) Who would set the exam papers;
(b) What process would be taken by those individuals in setting the exam, and crucially how would it differ from the existing approach;
(c) Who would run the administrative side of things (dates, venues, correspondence with candidates, liaising with and between examiners etc.);
(d) Who would mark the papers; and
(e) What process would be taken by those individuals in marking the papers, and crucially how would it differ from the existing approach.
Presently, (a) and (d) are carried out by teams of qualified and experienced patent attorneys. (b) and (e) are carried out by those patent attorneys under guidelines set by the PEB. (c) is carried out by the PEB.
If the exams were to be handled by a University, what would you change? One could argue that (b), (c) and (e) could be better handled by a University, although in practice (b) and (e) would require input from patent attorneys to ensure that the exam questions and marking scheme would result in a fair assessment of candidate fitness to practice. Would that be enough to satisfy the present criticism of the system? How would you integrate a large number of patent attorney examiners into a University-led process - would they be required to undertake some form of training? If so, are candidates/employers willing to pay higher fees for the exams associated with increased patent attorney examiner time costs?
To flip the question around another way, what PRECISELY do we consider the flawed components of the exam system to be? And what changes do we suggest in order to alleviate those flaws?
It seems as though I am the only one to think this. So I stand to be corrected perhaps. However, reading this post has been highly distressing for my trainee who is waiting on P6 results on Monday. It's a real shame that you chose to analyze the paper and publish your thoughts so publicly as she is now aware of points that she missed (presumably one of many in view of the drop in pass mark). The unecessary detail in this post has, without doubt, caused pain. A little more thought for others in the future, please. The full analysis could have waited until Tuesday.
ReplyDeleteYes, PEB shouldn't have released this news when they did. The timing was extremely poor and unsatisfactory. This should be investigated further. It makes me think that PEB only actually decided to change the pass mark earlier this week, or they would have released the news earlier. This seems to be leaving things to last minute. They should have waited until after EQEs to release the news.
ReplyDeleteTraining for P6 is often given by qualified attorneys who passed P6 with 50-60%. They then pass on their 50-60% correct knowledge onto trainees, who maybe remember 70% of what they were taught. This is inconsistent and leads to many people approaching the exam not correctly. PEB need to give more and better advice on how to train people to pass P6. I understand that a webinar was given to trainers this year on exactly that, this is a step in the right direction.
There are a number of trainees who do pass P6 first time, and with good marks. PEB should investigate what training these individuals had, as this shows that P6 is possible with the right training.
From my experience of exams at a top university, they were not much better (most likely worse) organised. Exam timetables were often released as late as two weeks before the exams. Lectures were still being held during exams. They were numerous errors. One exam paper (not for my course but for electrical engineering) was given out to candidates with the mark scheme accidentally on the back of the paper. The mark schemes were not formalized until after students had sat the exam. The lecturers would then decide what to give marks for so that the correct number of people pass. I'm sure if PEB conducted exams like this they would be even more uproar. My experience is not unique and friends at other top universities have similar experiences. We must make sure we don't look back to university with rose tinted glasses.
Possibly the P6 exams are too hard, and some of the above comments seem reasonable but we must take some of the suggestions with a pinch of salt. There are a number of attorneys who have failed P6 numerous times. These attorneys then, rightly, are extremely critical of the P6 exam (it has held back their careers after all). However, some of the comments above go beyond this and seem like a personal vendetta against P6.
Broadly agree.
DeleteIt should be noted, though, that there will always be a disparity between the pass-rate of the UK exams and those of the EQEs. As a result some people will always be good enough to pass one but not the other.
In Italy the ease of the Italian national qualification exams relative to the EQEs means that the Italian patent profession doesn't take them seriously. However it is the ease of the national exams that is a likely cause of the low Italian pass-rate at the EQEs, since Italian attorneys simply don't train to a high enough standard.
In contrast the UK has the highest pass rate at the EQEs of any of the big EPC countries. This is not an accident, but a reflection of the high standards of the UK profession, standards that are enforced by the PEB exams. Why undermine this?
Agree that a lot of the bitterness about P6 on here is from repeated failing of the exam resulting in negative effects on the careers of the people who failed it. I'm not sure it is reasonable, however, to make P6 easier simply because some people good enough to pass the EQEs cannot pass P6.
Finally, yes, universities are hardly likely to be better stewards of the patent profession than the PEB. For one thing they don't actually have any incentive to keep costs down.
Candidates are not requesting for the exam to be easier. It is a request for the exams to be fit for purpose.
DeleteUniversity based courses are very expensive (I think the Bournemouth course cost around £5k). Even shorter university courses are expensive, and would be unlikely to provide any kind of useful depth of education. Is it really likely that IP firms will start pushing to pay even more money to train their trainees (whilst losing access to their time whilst they are on the courses)? That seems unrealistic.
ReplyDeleteThe point relating to the Nottingham course for trade mark attorneys is interesting. What is the feeling in the trade mark profession regarding this course: is it seen as a valid test of someone's readiness to practice? A further question is: are the skills required by a trade mark attorney and a patent attorney analogous (and hence able to be learnt and tested in the same way)?
I think a system in which training was handed over to the universities would quickly degenerate into the kind of awfulness that has struck solicitors and barristers: people desperate to enter the profession self-funding their training, resulting in a total over-supply of prospective attorneys.
Delete"Time to shift these advanced exams to a university."
ReplyDeleteThis is not the answer, universities suffer from grade inflation, and extreme pressure to assure candidates pass, and pass well. There is data to show that grade inflation (70% of the 50% of the population attending university now gets 1 or 2.1s, compared to the 10-30% of the 10 to 15% that used to attend university 30 years ago). It would seem statistically unlikely that the population has gotten smarter over that 30 years. Passing professional exams wholly to the care of that environment seems unwise.
However university training may be part of the answer but universities cannot afford to pay patent attorneys to train students, maybe hey could test "knowledge". But the "fitness to practice" piece would need to be judged elsewhere, in addition to knowledge based exams.
What is it they use in medicine for everyday training? - the "Socratic questioning method" - putting trainee doctors on the spot each and every day - not sure if its kind, but it seems to work. They can then respond to day to day challenges that doctors face.
While there are criticisms of the Nottingham course (nothing is perfect and cost is an issue the NLS course cost is currently ~£8,500), I felt it was better than the old JEB trade mark papers which colleagues had noted to be fearsome. Seeing the PEB exams I can fully believe that the JEB trade mark papers were fearsome and there is a reason why CITMA moved away from this style of administering professional qualifications. All the teaching staff on the Nottingham course had at least practiced as a solicitor and other staff were brought in from outside including IP barristers and practicing trade mar attorneys. The whole course was centered on fitness to practice and whether you could be deemed competent or not.
ReplyDeleteThe course was provided in a similar fashion to Bournemouth with a few sessions in Nottingham, but otherwise by distance minimizing time out of the office.
On time served entry into the profession there is already a two year bar on being admitted to IPREG's register.
I don't think it can be said that the skills are analogous, the two jobs are different, and so the course would need to specifically designed for patent attorneys (though I note patent attorneys did join the basic litigation part of the NLS course).
University fees are expensive but I do not think that firms would be put off by this and some are willing to send their trainees to such courses. We also need to remember that it is also time taken for senior attorneys to provide training and support. Their time is far more valuable so I would think that firms are open to the idea of a university style exam.
ReplyDeleteMy advice to candidates is to focus on European exams to qualify. You don't need the letters CPA to be a great attorney.
ReplyDeleteA course or a university style exam or even coursework related tests are great ideas. It is an alternative to PEB system which does have many faults. There needs to be consideration for these but I think having a discussion about this is a good thing. All comments should be taken by PEB.
ReplyDeleteThe comments here reflect a bigger issues about the exams, PEB itself and training development within the profession. It would be great if PEB/CIPA can launch a survey to capture some of these comments.
ReplyDeleteThese issues need to be looked at as the last thing we all want is to create a "them vs us" within the profession. We should all be supporting each other and I do think PEB have been quite poor in their communication and how they convey their messages.
Alot is at stake for many people with these exams. Their life. pay and career progression depends heavily on passing these exams. I'm not quite sure PEB truly understand this.
ReplyDeleteWe need to look more to our European colleagues who provide much better access, training and understanding of the system. Please look at DeltaPatents as one example of how open and inclusive they are. Their training materials are excellent, their blogs are excellent allowing room for discussions on exam questions etc... There is nothing for UK exams.
I don't mind if the exam is hard. However, it's hard in the wrong way.
ReplyDeleteNot to blow my own anonymous trumpet, but as someone who passed everything else first time with a comfortable margin, got the best mark in cohort at University, has many happy clients, and has partners impatient to offer me a position, it might not be a 'fitness to practice' issue that has seen me stuck on P6.
I think they could make P6 fairer by keeping the subject matter more accessible. The envelope exam (2016) had subject matter that was reasonably easy to understand and was almost "Paper C" like in its subject matter. The exam was still hard with a number of issues to address.
ReplyDeleteThe years after that have been far more complicated technology.
I also think they could keep the number of claims and amount of prior art fairly consistent. It would still be a struggle to finish with 4 claims but people would have a better chance of putting together a full answer.
Its not like paper C isn't a tough exam.
Best of luck to everyone for Monday.
Fully agree with one of the comments above re the PEB exams apparently testing candidates ability to handle simple concepts at 100 mile-an-hour. Surely it would be more useful and representative to test more technically and legally challenging issues without such unrepresentative time pressure. In the present exam format a good proportion of the test seems to be simply of candidates hand-writing speed and mental and physical stamina, which are attributes that I reckon have low importance in day-to-day patent attorney work. Surely what matters foremost to clients is the attorneys technical ability and knowledge?
ReplyDeletePresumably if the PEB were setting driver tests they wouldn't test useful real-life maneuvers required of drivers day-to-day at low speed and fail those unable to safely perform the maneuvers, they would just throw learner drivers out onto a bowl racetrack to drive around and around at full throttle for five hours with the expectation that two-thirds would crash and burn.
The EQE exams, although not perfect, do at least seem to be directed more towards testing candidates technical ability and knowledge rather than just their writing speed and physical and mental stamina.
I passed last year but many of the above comments resonate with me. I don't know how I would approach P6 if I had to do it again, but it's ridiculous that you aren't allowed a copy of your marked exam script any more (one of my colleagues asked for theirs last year and was told this is not longer done). How are you supposed to learn if you don't know where you went wrong? The opacity of the whole process speaks volumes about the PEB's priorities.
ReplyDeleteAlthough a university course or assessment would not be perfect, it would certainly level the paying field and be much more independent and transparent, rather than being run by a few people who have a vested interest in keeping their trainees unqualified (so they can pay them less for the same work). PEB has a very long way to go to restore any semblance of confidence in the finals.
The feelings shown on here about PEB exams are "sadly" the feelings many candidates and lots of attorneys share. I'm glad this has been brought up in this blog.
ReplyDeletePEB exams have been incredibly unfair. I do wonder why I have passed but one of my brilliant colleagues cannot get pass P2 or P6. They are EPA qualified and have tremendous passion for the profession, but PEB exams demoralizes all of us.
I sometimes feel embarrassed because I wouldn't be able to pick up another P6 paper in another year and pass it. Even if I have 20 years post-qualified experience, I still doubt I can pass P6 again. To use the driving test theory, if you passed your exam then you should be able to comfortably pass the driving test exam again after 5 years of experience. I cannot say this is the case for PEB exams. My conclusion: I do not know what PEB exams test. Its not consistent and it is an extremely unfair process.
I challenge any qualified attorneys to take a full P6 paper and see if you actually pass it again. I did it last year to try to train some of my colleagues (I only passed it 3 years ago in 2015) but couldn't pass it. So I don't know how I pass in the first place. I am liking the university suggestion.
For someone who hasn't taken P6 or P2, I've heard all these things before about PEB exams and I guess this just confirmed what's been around or known about.
ReplyDeleteI do fear getting stuck at the trainee level forever but I will have take the exam to actually know how bad it really is. I found the QML course excellent so I would like to think that it is possible to have similiar courses at universities for the advanced papers.
Referring to the comment above - that is a truly good point. Attorneys with 3+ post qualification experience should be able to comfortably pass these PEB exams if it really is designed to be "fit to practice".
ReplyDeleteIts time we think outside the box and look at some other offerings. University style examination sounds appealing and warrants further review.
i don't think I would be able to pass this exam if I did it again. Took me 5 attempts to pass and I'm sure if I do it again, I would not be anywhere near to passing it again. Just a lottery game. Playing on the lives of many people.
DeleteI think P2 is fine as it is. Yes it's a difficult exam but it's supposed to be since it's an advanced level exam. The pass rate is so low partly because too many trainees sit it far too early into their career. In my firm trainees are sitting it after less than two years in the profession. I understand the desire to get qualified quickly but two years is just not enough time to gain enough experience to deal with the issues raised in the paper.
ReplyDeleteP6 is awful though. It is too much of a test on speed reading/writing than a test on a candidate's ability to actually assess infringement and validity. Also, if you fail P6 then there is no feedback on what you did wrong so you don't know how to better prepare for the next year. I don't think it's a case of keeping people unqualified, more a case of that's how it's always been so nothing will be changed.
I also agree with the many comments comparing the EQE material with what is provided by the PEB. The PEB material is just not good enough, though it is certainly better than 3-4 years ago.
Haven't we seen numerous failures in EQE exams, typically due to unclear wording of questions, which the examiners had to compensate people for with additional marks? I don't think the PEB have much to learn from the EQEs to be frank.
DeleteMoreover, if the EQEs are so good why the massive variations in national pass-rates?
There are too many cracks for candidates to fall into in fd4. It is no wonder that it feels like a lottery or, for candidates with a fundamental flaw such as not being fast enough, that passing is a possibility regardless of fitness to practice.
ReplyDeleteThe candidate does not share the exam committee's opinion on a host of technical points that can reasonably be argued either way? Fail!
The candidate has veered too far from the mark scheme becuase of the decisions above? Fail!
The candidate cannot make lightning decisions on the complex technical points mentioned above? Fail!
The candidate did not finish all sections comprehensively? Fail!
The candidate cannot write 50 pages of legible and well reasoned statements in just 5 hours? Fail!
The candidate interpreted the documents in a different way to that anticipated? Problem with the paper? Of course not... Fail!
The candidate did not suggest options for proceeding that aligned with the committee's view, even if such options would not be taken by any litigator in their right mind? Fail!
The candidate did not have their paper marked by one of the more lenient members of the committee? Fail.
The candidate did not pay to be tutored by one of the committee? Fail!
The candidate did not construe enough points in excruciating detail and therfore did not pick up enough half marks to get 50? Fail!
The list could go on...
There are fundamental problems with the exam itself. The way that the exam is marked, the inflexibility of the committee, and their refusal t accept when they get things wrong only adding fuel to the fire.
It must be said that the comment above raises a very interesting point regarding the inherent conflict of interest that arises due to the examiners tutoring privately.
ReplyDeleteHow many people would collectively need to decide not to take this exam for PEB to realise they do not hold all of the cards?
ReplyDeleteI think it should be highlighted that the problem with the exam is not the difficulty. A hard exam is annoying yes but the difficulty would be factored into careers and expectations if it was consistent.
ReplyDeleteThe difficulty *and* variation in awarded marks for similar scripts is the real problem. Those of us lucky enough to work in big firms have access to multiple scored recent scripts. I encourage such people to try the following test - mark the scripts against the markschemes then compare with the awarded marks. If you do more than a few scripts you will see how imconsistently the marks are applied.
Whether this is examiner variation or something more malevolent I cannot tell. Regardless, it is fundamentally unfair.
The modern markschemes are such that scores of above 60 are nigh on impossible for those who write at normal speed. Given the marking variation is over 10 marks this means regardless of performance, experience and preparation a candidate cannot be certain to pass. This simply cannot be right!
Anon at 3 March 17:04 - I agree with you. People need to vote with their feet. I have just received the results and unsurprisingly have failed. I will not be sitting the exam again. I will instead focus on qualifying as an EPA. That's what I need to do 100% of my job anyway!
ReplyDeleteDear Anon, sorry for your results and for many others too. We all know everyone works incredibly hard but these PEB exams are in my view unjustifiable hold back many in their career progression. It is not a reflection on your competence or capability to do the job.
ReplyDeleteWe really need to consider whether PEB exams are fit for purpose because it doesn't sit comfortable with me that highly experienced EPA are failing year in, year out. Just concentrate on getting EPA and like someone else said above, you don't need PEB exams to know you can do the job really well. It's such a shame that experience and "know how" skills are not taken into account.
The problem is that the exam committee expect candidates to think and write like they are all the same. We are not. Every attorney will advise differently and will write or express themselves differently. As long as the main issues and points are covered, I do not see why PEB cannot be flexible with a candidate's thinking. It doesn't need to be word for word on the marking scheme to get the marks.
ReplyDeleteTime for change! University style examination
I don't think I want to take part in these ridiculous and wasteful examination. I would rather focus on my job and get my EQE qualification. Unless PEB changes, I'm not giving them my money. I now have to pay for my own resits because my firm will not pay for me. Yet, I received barely any adequate training and PEB are not making any effort or nowhere near as much effort as the EPO to improve their training.
ReplyDeleteDespite thinking I'd done reasonably in the exam (finishing all sections, even detailed inventive step for each claim), I got significantly below the (reduced) pass mark. Will not be taking this again until the exam is sorted out.
ReplyDeleteThe pain and agony of doing the PEB exams are just not worth it! If firms demand that you do the PEB exams, they should really provide top notch training and pay for many resits. Lets face it, PEB exams involve more luck and then skill to pass. If not, don't bother. You get more out of your EQE qualifications.
ReplyDeletePEB really needs to step up. There is huge conflict of interest which is why I think a university style exam is a possible option.
PEB keeps increasing fees and by making some changes to the marking schemes, they believe they can justify the inflation busting 20% fee hike. Can I also point out that the EQE have also changed their marking schemes to be much better but I don't see any huge increases here.
Unsurprisingly I have failed FD4 too - with a mark in the 30s, yet I got 65 in one of my other papers, and passed the other 3 first time. I can only laugh at this (now that I've stopped crying). I can only hope there will be some changes for this year. Onwards...
ReplyDeleteI hope PEB are reading comments on this blog. This is just valuable feedback for them to see how candidates and qualified attorneys are viewing these examination. As a recently qualified attorney, I found the PEB exams terrible and thank the heavens that I passed. It was more luck than anything else.
ReplyDeleteI think its clear. Examinations should be there as a way of checking but not to the extent that hardly anyone passes them. I don't see the point in that unless PEB intentionally wants to cap the numbers into the profession.
ReplyDeleteThe exams especially for P2 and P6 in my opinion should not be time constraint. There should be enough time to allow candidates to go back and check their answers. These are the attorneys we want, to be able to check the details and their answers again. After all, we are giving an opinion to clients and I won't let anything goes out of my office unless I check the report/opinion again. This should be factored into the examination or if not possible to incorporate into the PEB exams- outsource the exams to a course or university.
You can add me to the list of people who failed (44) and won't be giving PEB another penny until P6 is fixed
ReplyDeleteThe adjusted pass rate was still only 33.8% - the lowest of the last 15 years at least by far (next lowest was the Rotabrolly at 36).
ReplyDeleteThe examiner's report is a bit of a joke: smugly describing the prior art as 'modest documents', 'the background was not complex'. 25 marks for inventive step (6 more than last year), which most people do not get to, and they know it (despite the report claiming 'a review of the exam scripts shows that most candidates were able to provide their thoughts on each section of the paper').
"It has been recognised that this year’s paper did appear to provide a significant challenge to candidates. In the light of statistical and other evidence, by applying the minimum pass descriptor, the pass mark has been reduced to 47."
ReplyDeleteIs that it?
How many times do we have to go through this cycle until everyone understands that PEB simply needs to change.
ReplyDeletePlease consider alternatives such as university examination where candidates should obtain similar training and development and tests. Yes, the details needs working but it is such a good idea. I used to think I was the only one thinking that this is good but after reading this blog, I know I'm not alone. I'm not saying that we should drop standards, I'm just saying that we should make it fair for all. Its my belief that PEB exams are (whether intentionally or not) are not fair exams.
33% is a joke.
ReplyDeleteI have just found out that I have failed again. Many of the comments above about being an experienced attorney, qualified EPA for 3 years and competently serving many clients do also apply to me. I am not sure what to do for the best - keep going in the hope I will hit the jackpot or just concentrate on being a good patent attorney. I am 10 years into the profession. People who trained with me are now getting partnership and I am stuck on a newly qualified pay grade - not the worst position to be in I know but frustrating all the same when one busts ones gut every year on this wretched exam.
ReplyDeleteThe PEB is outdated and there is simply no pressure for it to modernise. The farce that is this year's P6 only epitomises the arbitrary nature of this paper.
ReplyDeleteThe sad irony behind all of the rubbish that is spouted about "fitness to practice" is that representation before the UKIPO does not require the PEB qualifications.
Many in-house practices already do not require passing the PEB exams in their departments. If this trend continues and the PEB continue to fail to pay attention to the views of the junior profession, I can only imagine that the exams will start to become phased out for private practice firms as well.
I want PEB/CIPA to seriously to investigate why PEB exams are a hindrance to people's career progression. For me, these exams are a serious barrier to career progression and yet, my firm is happy to allow me to interact with clients, deal with them without any supervision but pay me a newly qualified wage (with little progression prospect until I get UK exams) because I cannot pass (in my case) P2 and P6. Is this really the way to go because these exams only distract me from being an attorney and serving what is best for my clients.
ReplyDeleteI understand P2 can be helpful but there is so little UK work that lands on my desk, its useless. As for P6, well the comments from everyone speaks for itself.
You can't blame PEB/CIPA for your employers unwillingness to promote you. That is entirely up to your employer what criteria they use. Your employer might require (for example) that all partners are UK and EP qualified, that's their decision not PEB/CIPA's.
DeleteAnd maybe your current employer does not regard being able to advise UK clients without supervision to be "useless"?
Hi Anonymous 13.41. Your comments brilliantly sums up what is wrong with this profession. PEB exams seems to benefit for the few.
ReplyDeleteWho benefits? I am sure the employers of Anonymous 13.41 would love to raise his/her salary and up his/her hourly rate by a proportional amount. The employers would be able to make more money that way.
DeleteThe idea that senior members of the professional benefit from fewer people qualifying is ridiculous.
I'm not the original anonymous, but in my firm our hourly rate is determined by number of years in the profession whilst our salary is determined by qualification. It's entirely possible that other firms may have a similar structure.
DeleteThere is a lot of dissatisfied junior attorneys and trainees who thinks that PEB exams are no good. Not just this group - as an attorney with 7+ experience, I also believe PEB exams are no longer the right exams. It has made a lot of good and bright candidates turn their back to this profession. Its not good for the long-term and I do agree that these exams are designed to hold back alot of people's careers.
ReplyDeleteKeeping the pass rate low incentivizes the candidates who fail to pay current examiners to teach them how to pass. That is all you need to know about these exams.
ReplyDeleteNot fully true (know from experience). You also need to be able to write fast enough to get all those tedious half marks! Although those two are pretty much it... Laughable when you look at the syllabus.
DeleteAnother candidate who failed the exam with 45 (this was my second attempt). For me, there are a lot of unanswered questions. What exactly in the paper was it that they viewed as the common "mistake" people made that led to the low pass rate and why they feel that lowering to 47 was an adequate compensation for this mistake?
ReplyDeleteI am wondering if there would be any benefit in trying to get together an open letter to express our dissatisfaction with FD4. Even better if it could be signed and sent on behalf of firms. I imagine that it would hold a lot of weight if 10 big UK firms all wrote to PEB saying that they were not happy with this. At the very least it would ramp up the pressure for PEB to give an actual answer as to what happened and what they are going to do about it to ensure it does not happen again.
Are you considering appealing?
DeleteI am considering appealing, though I am not sure on the success rates of doing so (and it's very expensive!). I asked one of my colleagues who went through the appeals process in respect of one of the foundation exams and he said that the re-mark is not a blind remark, but rather a new examiner checking the marking of the other examiner(s). So I am not sure of the value versus cost. If anyone has any experience with the appeals procedure, please let me know!
DeleteI definitely think it is worth putting a bit of pressure on PEB anyway/in addition to any appeals. If anyone thinks their firm would back an open letter expressing their dissatisfaction, please let me know (izzyaferguson "at" gmail dot com). Hopefully we can get a wide spread of firms!
One P6 examiner told me last year that every appeal he had been involved in had been successful (i.e. a pass was awarded), but I suppose there's no way to know if that's a because of the variability of marking overall or just because the only people willing to pay for an appeal were those who were certain they should have passed.
DeleteDoes PEB really think the clients are going to pay for and appreciate every single word in a claim being broken down and analysed to death. Get a grip PEB. Time to modernize and get back to reality.
ReplyDeleteNo - that's why these exams are utterly pointless and of no value.
DeletePEB is coming across as incompetence for so many years now. How come nothing has been done. I'm seriously considering writing to the IP minister to investigate PEB.
DeleteHow it set the exams, runs the exams and mark the exams. There are too many things at stake for a candidate. Their career is affected, their families is affected and I must also mention their well being too.
If FD4 is a "fitness to practice" test, qualified attorneys (partners and associates) who are fit to practice should have no trouble passing it.
ReplyDeleteAs an experiment, perhaps IPREG and PEB should force all qualified patent attorneys to resit FD4 together with trainees one year. Consider it a "regulator spot check".
When, inevitably, ~2/3 of qualified attorneys also fail the exam, IPREG and PEB must draw one of two conclusions:
(1) two thirds of qualified patent attorneys are not fit to practice; or
(2) the exam is not fit for purpose.
I would contrast this with the EQEs where my impression is that qualified attorneys would have no trouble passing all 4 EQEs if made to resit them.
Also, if all qualified patent attorneys in the UK (~2000) were made to sit FD4 one year, it would provide a far bigger data set to conduct any subsequent statistical analysis.
The ease of the EQEs is not a plus point for it. We should especially consider why exactly it is that the pass-rate for UK attorneys is so much higher than that of other countries.
DeleteThe EQE pass rate is irrelevant as the EQEs do not test in this regard.
DeleteStill, if you want to use exams to police quality then lets have all qualified attorneys sit FD4 every 5 years to remain UK qualified .
We should also see exactly why UK attorneys are paid much less than their fellow colleagues around the world despite a huge proportion of filings going through the UK.
DeleteTo Anonymous at 4 Mar 17.25: There is simply not enough money in the world to entice all qualified patent attorneys to resit the FD4. And who can blame them? The only ones who might agree would be the examiners who set the paper. I don't think anyone other than the examiners believe FD4 to be fit for purpose.
ReplyDeleteI like the suggestion further up about getting the top 10 firms to write to the PEB.
Also, as has already been suggested, PEB should offer free resits. That would be the fair thing to do. Actually, that is the least they can do.
If you think PEB will take any notice of the above criticism you have not been paying attention. They have ignored the pain and stress this exam puts on candidates for well over a decade. Sooner or later they will be a drive a candidate over the edge and I hope they can live with themselves when the inevitable happens.
ReplyDeleteIf PEB was more transparent the selection bias of some of the PEB examiners and the utterly ridiculous variation between examiners would be there for all to see (ask the decent examiners and they acknowledge it). Instead, PEB cautiously avoids all analysis that might reveal either aspect.
This was unacceptable in the 90s now it is just embarrassing. A modern profession should have no time whatsoever for an old boys network deciding if someone can enter their club accordingly to a nebulous criteria and whether or not their writing style is the club standard.
@Anon 17:25 - very good point if these exams are the gold standard of differentiating those who are safe to practise from those who are not then those who are (safely) practising should have no trouble passing.
ReplyDeleteAnother possibility would be to have a number of random attorneys forced to take the exam each year and then set the pass mark on what they score.
I think its a brilliant suggestion to have a couple of qualified attorneys take the exams each year. I have never really thought about it, but the fact that that isn't already happening is shocking.
ReplyDeleteIt is happening, the PEB even sent out an email asking for testers for the 2018 papers. They sit the exams (under exam conditions) in ~June, but their attempts are not marked. Instead, they give feedback and the papers are modified (if necessary) based on their comments. One of the attorneys at my firm has been an FD1 tester for ~5 years. I'm not aware of any qualified attorneys that sit the actual exam at the same time as the candidates though.
DeleteIn contrast, the EQEs use EPAs to sit the actual papers at the same time as the candidates. Their attempts are marked and used to adjust the mark scheme.
To all the comments above. I agree with you all that an open letter should be signed by as many colleagues as possible to PEB with backing from the big 10 firms + industry. Can I ask for those within those firms to approach their firms. Its in the firm's interest to get you qualified. If PEB are still resisting change and do not acknowledge many people's concerns, I think other options such as a university style examination will look very attractive.
ReplyDeleteGet the partners to resit these exams. The should comfortably pass and have no troubles if they think or view FD4 is fit for practice.
ReplyDeleteThey do that (qualified attorneys sitting papers) for the EQEs - the man who runs the Salted patent blog/Fireball patents wrote that he sat all 4 papers under exam conditions in Munich as one of the 'benchmarkers' and apparently they use these answers and the benchmarkers' comments as points for discussion in the marking committee meeting
ReplyDeleteIs anyone considering appealing their mark?
ReplyDeleteHi I've failed for the second time with a mark of 46%... I'm seriously considering appealing especially since last year a well known tutor looked at my script (45% fail) and was of the opinion that I should've passed. Like others I thought I had done quite well in this exam only to receive a fail....
DeleteDefinitely appeal. It will be remarked by someone independent of the original marking and I know that fails have become passes in recent history.
DeleteDefinitely, definitely appeal. Especially with such a close mark (1 off the adjusted 47 pass!). I recently heard that a particular person who gives a popular JDD course is almost guaranteed to mark the appeals (I believe they are a core FD4 Examiner), and further that this marker generally finds a way to allow a pass.
DeleteHow close were the people with successful appeals? Is there anyway to access data regarding appeals- I imagine this is another thing that is lacking in transparency from PEB?
DeleteI would also be interest to know of how appeals have gone in the past. My mark was 45.25 (rounded down to 45).
DeleteThere is data available on the PEB site about appeals in the past, but these don’t seem to be realistic based on what I’ve heard directly from examiners...
DeletePEB is coming across as incompetence for so many years now. How come nothing has been done. I'm seriously considering writing to the IP minister to investigate PEB.
ReplyDeleteHow it set the exams, runs the exams and mark the exams. There are too many things at stake for a candidate. Their career is affected, their families is affected and I must also mention their well being too.
To add my two cents.Things that could be improved in P6:
ReplyDelete1. Get rid of the clarity issues. It's unlikely that a patent like those in the exam would ever be granted, and all it does is waste time. Seriously, there must be better things for the examiners to focus in the paper (like making sure the subject matter is not too technical for people sitting it...).
2. Not add equivalency issues. Yes, it is an important part of UK case law now, but FD1 is a more appropriate forum to test this where any confusion will be confined to one question. In my experience (based in-house), very few experienced attorneys understand this well enough to give satisfactory advice (particularly with the lack of current case law) so it is not likely to end well adding this to a time pressured exam for candidates who have been in the profession for less than 10 years. This would be similar to Paper C in the EQEs where sufficiency is not examined. It's simply not practical to examine equivalency in an effective manner in this exam given the variety of technical backgrounds in this profession.
3. Testing the exam more thoroughly to candidates with different technical fields before giving it to candidates. Doing so should have picked up the issues on this paper before it ruined the chances of several candidates getting an appropriate pay rise this year.
4. Making the papers consistent each year. For example, I understand this years exam was heavy on inventive step compared to usual. How are you supposed to time manage when you have no idea how marks are distributed?
5. Reducing the amount of prior art/infringing embodiments and adding some "easy" marks instead. For example, to go back to Paper C, five of the marks are for filling out an opposition form correctly. Maybe add a form for initiating proceedings before the Comptroller. This would help with the time pressure in the exam.
6. [My preferred option] Scrap it and come up with something more practical. I would seriously question the judgement of an attorney who provided advice in the style of that required for P6.
Imagine the scenario they are examining and you see how ridiculous the exam is:
Client: "So this invoice says you only spent five hours on this for some arbitrary reason?"
Attorney: "Yes"
Client: "You looked at the unclear patent our competitor somehow got granted, and the three pieces of prior art, and our two products to see if they infringe in that time?"
Attorney: "Yes"
Client: "And you looked at that equivalency thing you mentioned that sounded complicated?"
Attorney: "Yes"
Client: "Even though the patent relates to electrical circuits for insect traps and your website says you deal with biotech patents?"
Attorney: "Yes"
Client: "And based on this scrappy advice letter that you possibly spent 10 minutes on at the end of that time, you're saying we don't infringe and it's OK that we launch our multi-million pound product now?"
Attorney "Erm..."
Yes, it's not real life, but it doesn't examine a candidates fitness to practise either, particularly for life sciences. There HAS to be a more effective way of examining these skills.
You might be surprised at the number of unclear patents that exist! When I was a trainee UK examiner under the last days of the 1949-Act my trainer showed us a number of "Friday afternoon" patents as things to watch out for, such as claims not supported by the description, and one such was is this situation in a real infringement action I was involved in. Unfortunately, if the point is not raised in examination, it is not a ground of revocation, a lacuna in my view. This sort of thing is all the more likely nowadays. Under the 1949 Act, it was an essential part of an examiner's duties to read the entire description to ensure it made sense. Come the 1977 Act, such detailed examination was deemed unnecessary as examiners no longer had to write detailed abridgments of the total disclosure. When patents became more "sexy", and higher management positions in the Patent Office became progressively occupied by DTI generalists rather than examiners who had progressed up from the coal face, "efficiency" (disposing of the maximum cases in the minimum time, with salary progression determined by achieving disposal targets, regardless of quality) has become more important, meaning that policy has been to reduce the amount of intellectual examination work done by examiners. This is evident from the Manual of Patent Practice. There was even a proposal a few years ago (not adopted, at least officially) that examiners would no longer examine the description at all, but just search the claims. The post-Batistelli EPO, which used to have rigourous examination, now seems to operate on similar lines.
DeleteThus it can be expected that practitioners will meet more unclear patents in the future.
Does anyone know whether we could get a copy of our marked answer script using a subject access request under GDPR?
ReplyDeleteYes! PEB will have to comply with this (and indeed have done when such a request has been made in previous years). It seems silly that candidates have to resort to making a request under GDPR- access to marked scripts should be freely available in a transparent exam system yet PEB refuse to give out this information unless GDPR is mentioned.
DeleteA colleague of mine had their GDPR request for their marked script blankly refused due to PEB policy.
DeleteThere used to be three examiners marking the scripts. Now there are only two. Presumably the third one got fed up and quit. I am also interested in knowing whether we can force PEB to released the marked scripts.
ReplyDeleteAnd can I just say, those examiner comments are hilarious. Especially love the one saying the technology was relatively simple. Why don't we try a biotech invention this year for a change? Say something really simple and well known like polymerase chain reaction. Or a simple antibody. Let's see how you like them apples...
One solution for PEB would be to set another exam before October. Each year there are back up examination papers (one would hope that these could be tested more thoroughly before they are used) and therefore it would be easy to set up a fair re-take for affected candidates. it seems the least PEB could do given the impact this has had on many candidates.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why we don't have a more professional approach to training. Look to some of the other professions, no need to reinvent the wheel as it were. For example, there should be a portfolio for each trainee to log their training and competencies for the duration of training. Once complete, it should be signed off by the training principal after which the candidate can apply for and sit the final papers. This will stop trainees from taking the exams before they are ready and force firms to evaluate their quality of training. Look up the JRCPTB ePortfolio for medical trainees. The days of sitting by Nellie are long gone.
ReplyDeleteRegarding a GDPR request to the PEB, there was a recent decision from the CJEU which essentially said written answers submitted at a professional exam and any comments of the examiner with respect of those answers constitute a candidate's personal data to which he has a right of access. I posted a link to that earlier but the post wasn't published. A simple Google search will bring it up.
PEB doesn't care it seems. A colleague of mine submitted their GDPR request in which they referred to that cause, but PEB refused to give the marked script and any related corresponded citing "PEB policies".
DeleteI passed this time on my 7th attempt. I passed my other exams 7 years ago at the first sitting. All I changed this time was exam technique. Which leads me to believe that this exam is not testing you are safe to practice but rather you can pass the exam.
ReplyDeleteAnon-12:56 please share your exam technique :)
ReplyDeleteIt is painful to say, but it almost seems as though some trainees expect to be handed qualification on a plate. This is not university or school.
ReplyDeleteThe points on technical subject matter are not born out by the statistics - see the article in the latest CIPA journal. Candidates with a chemistry background have the highest P6 pass rate.
The UK finals are hard, but this is one aspect that distinguishes the UK profession. This may also be why the UK has a higher EQE pass rate than France and Germany.
Dear Anonymous @ 14.42. I'm slightly disappointed with the comments. I don't believe candidates are asking for these exams to be handed to them. I think we should encourage candidates to voice their opinions and not to be dismissive of their opinions. It is right that the exams should be suitable for the modern age, after all, modern patent attorneys will be providing a service to modern inventors and modern clients. Yes, some comments here are a bit extreme but there are also many valuable comments here too. Lets not simply dismiss trainee's opinions.
DeleteThe real issue here is that these exams are holding back careers for some.
DeleteTo anonymous @ 14.42. Perhaps there are more chemistry trainees so I wouldn't entirely rely on stats.
DeleteI am not sure the comments are asking for the exams to be handed to candidates on a plate. Some of the candidates have sat many difficult exams and come through them. The point is that FD4 is not really fit for purpose. An infringement and validity analysis, in 5 hours, with no access to external materials or the client, is hardly representative of real practice. There are many problems referenced. One of the biggest problems for me is that candidates are not carrying out FD4-type exercises on a regular basis. I have been in the profession for 10 years now and I have done one lot of infringement and validity analysis - which was only very recent. Firms have something to answer for as well in that training is generally poor. The firms with better training standards tend to see their candidates pass exams earlier and not be stuck in the system.
DeleteNobody is asking for the pass to be handed to them. The issue is that many competent EPAs who are very much safe to practice prepare for this exam and fail multiple time only to pass one year without any change in preparation or approach. Suggesting that there is a significant element of chance associated with obtaining a pass.
DeleteSo the Cipa president has asked that there should be no vitriol comments from candidates/trainees but yet some attorneys or senior attorneys think its OK to basically say that trainees want these exams handed to them on a plate I. E. Disregarding their concerns about this paper. Trainees work hard to get through these exams. Nobody is asking for these exams to be handed to them. There is simply a sense of unfairness and an element of luck involved. There is a question as to whether P6 is fit for purpose and that should be raised by those who care about the profession. It is not right to dismiss or categorise them as wanting an easy pass. It's their careers, their families and there are high stakes involved.
DeleteA bit sad that some think trainees are asking for a pass. They are querying the value of some of the PEB exams in their professional career. It appears that a significant number of attorneys are also querying the PEB exams. There is nothing wrong with raising this issue and debating it to bring this profession to the modern era.
DeleteIn France we now have two systems for CPI qualification (applies to both patents and trademark attorneys) :
ReplyDelete(1) for patents, the classical written series of examinations and then if successful at written exams, a jury viva - for trademarks something similar, but oriented towards trademarks, designs, copyright, etc.
(2) VAE (validation des acquis d'expérience) which is based on your professional experience (minimum 8 years) under the tutelage of registered attorneys, and for which you have to pass a viva in front of a panel of IP experts (registered attorneys, judges, academics, members of the French PTO). This form of qualification has acquired the unfortunate nickname of what roughly translates to "backdoor entry".
Perhaps something similar to (2) could be an option for discussion in the UK (without the pejorative connotation though) ?
I'm glad the CIPA president has announced a review as there seems to be a bit of a divide or certainly a sense of unfairness at the moment within the profession.
ReplyDeleteThe PEB is an examination agency accredited by IPReg to provide examination and assessment for qualification as a patent attorney. IPReg could - one assumes - accredit another agency such as a university to provide assessment for finals level assessment, just as they have done for foundations level. Any concerns about the PEB examinations should surely be addressed to IPReg as the accrediting body and ultimate arbiter on the standards for registration, rather than at the PEB.
ReplyDeleteRe: Anonymous at 8/3/19, 16:55
ReplyDeleteThis will amount to nothing. They "reviewed" P6/FD4 a few years ago and since then they have simply rejected any notion of modernising or changing the exam, preferring to write meaningless articles in the CIPA journal about how the exam is "fair" and simply "taught badly".
The bottom line - people at many top tier firms are being sent on P6/FD4 courses and undertaking tutorials where the subject is no longer the law and the actual practice of giving infringement/validity advice. Everyone is being taught how to "pass" the paper. How can this actually amount to an exam which assesses whether someone is competent to give advice in a real-life setting?
The training for these is atrocious. It places a ridiculous and unhealthy amount of stress on candidates which no one seems to really be mentioning. What is the point? Such an archaic system of entry would not be tolerated in any other profession. The only reason they get away with it is because its such a small profession in comparison to say accountancy. There is lack of transparency and consistency which makes the whole experience of sitting them utterly disheartening.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I just think its far too dependent on exam results. It does no one any good and can hold back a lot of people's career progression, wages and livelihoods.
Delete