Home » General Interest » EQE Pre-Exam 2015 – Questions on cardboard cut out

EQE Pre-Exam 2015 – Questions on cardboard cut out

Keltie LLP

K2 IP Limited

About IPcopy

IPcopy is an intellectual property related news site covering a wide variety of IP related news and issues. We will also take the odd lighthearted look at IP. Feel free to contact us via the details on the About Us page.

Disclaimer: Unless stated otherwise, the contributors to IPcopy (the "IPcopy writers") are patent and trade mark attorneys or patent and trade mark assistants at Keltie LLP or are network attorneys at K2 IP Limited. Guest contributors will be identified.

This news site is the personal site of the contributors and is not edited by the authors' employer in any way. From time to time however IPcopy may publish practice notes, legal updates and marketing news from Keltie LLP or K2 IP Limited. Any such posts will be clearly marked.

This news site is for information purposes only. Information posted to this news site is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you require IP related legal advice please contact your legal representative.

For the avoidance of doubt Keltie LLP and K2 IP Limited have no liability as to the content of IPcopy and any related tweets or social media posts.

Privacy Policy

IPcopy’s Privacy Policy can be viewed here.


[Update 11/5/15 – it appears from the comments on DeltaPatents results blog post that non-appealing candidates have also benefitted from the decision.]

IPcopy has just learned that the EQE Examination Board has sent out what appears to be a response letter to candidates who appealed their pre-exam results based on questions 15.2 and/or 17.3, rectifying their ‘fail’ decisions to passes. The letter means that the Examination Board has effectively accepted both true and false as correct for these questions where the main point of contention was whether the prior art disclosed that cardboard comprises wood fibres. However, this is not explicitly stated in the letter and, at time of writing, the marking scheme has not been updated.

It is interesting to note that the appeals did not have to be passed to the Disciplinary Board of Appeal, unlike the appeals* based on question 10.4 of the 2014 pre-exam.

However, as far as this ipcopywriter is aware, those candidates who got questions 15.2 and/or 17.3 ‘wrong’ but did not file an appeal to their ‘fail’ decision would not benefit from this Examination Board outcome. This is because the fail decision of each candidate would need to be appealed, with the grounds of appeal regarding the erroneously marked question(s). Perhaps then the timing of these response letters just after the appeal deadline of 6 May 2015 (assuming 10 days notification) was intentional.

Congratulations to the successful appellants who have now passed!

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Laurence Lai 7 May 2015

*D 0002/14, D 0003/14, D0004/14, D 0005/14 and D0006/14

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: