●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Sunday, October 17, 2021 ●● ● Oct 17 [00:59] *techrights_guest|95 (~5198ef1a@54n9xgft8g6u2.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Oct 17 [01:18] *blitzed has quit (Quit: +++ATH0&D2 NO CARRIER NO CAREER) [01:24] *blitzed (~blitzed@h989xkqa6uvfs.irc) has joined #techbytes [01:35] *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [01:35] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [01:39] *rianne (~rianne@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #techbytes [01:40] *DaemonFC has quit (Quit: Leaving) [01:41] *liberty_box (~liberty@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #techbytes [01:41] *Despatche has quit (Quit: Read error: Connection reset by deer) [01:44] schestowitz https://nitter.eu/zoobab/status/1449401977851502597 [01:44] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-nitter.eu | zoobab "NO Software Patents" (@zoobab): "We have rumours that UPC proponents wants to go ahead and ignore Brexit and the UK requirement in the PPA: "CONSIDERING that provisional application should only come into force when 13 Signatory States" https://www.unified-patent-court.org/sites/default/files/Protocol_to_the_Agreement_on_Unified_Patent_Court_on_provisional_application.pdf #upc #brexit" | nitter [01:44] schestowitz "Bruteforcing the PPA, ignoring Brexit once again" [01:48] *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@4dmq7treiu6e6.irc) has joined #techbytes [01:49] *DaemonFC has quit (Quit: Leaving) ● Oct 17 [02:02] *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@4dmq7treiu6e6.irc) has joined #techbytes [02:20] *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [02:21] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [02:38] *DaemonFC has quit (connection closed) [02:38] *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@4dmq7treiu6e6.irc) has joined #techbytes [02:42] *rianne (~rianne@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #techbytes [02:42] *liberty_box (~liberty@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Oct 17 [03:16] *DaemonFC has quit (Quit: Leaving) [03:27] *MinceR has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [03:33] *MinceR (~mincer@bringer.of.light) has joined #techbytes [03:33] *irc.techrights.org sets mode +a #techbytes MinceR [03:36] *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@msr5b63q5iht2.irc) has joined #techbytes [03:42] *DaemonFC has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [03:48] *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@6ezvid7v33bfq.irc) has joined #techbytes [03:50] *MinceR has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [03:51] *MinceR (~mincer@bringer.of.light) has joined #techbytes [03:51] *irc.techrights.org sets mode +a #techbytes MinceR [03:53] *DaemonFC has quit (connection closed) [03:54] *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@4u6eaacr4tpai.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Oct 17 [04:03] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [04:03] *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Oct 17 [06:07] *DaemonFC has quit (connection closed) ● Oct 17 [07:40] *techrights_guest|95 has quit (Quit: Connection closed) ● Oct 17 [08:22] *liberty_box (~liberty@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #techbytes [08:22] *rianne (~rianne@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #techbytes [08:59] *spazzz has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Oct 17 [09:00] *spazzz (~spazz@urifce6zxwtdi.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Oct 17 [10:43] *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [10:44] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Oct 17 [12:01] *rianne (~rianne@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #techbytes [12:01] *liberty_box (~liberty@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #techbytes [12:47] schestowitz
  • [12:47] schestowitz
    Russia Gets First Batch of Arm-Based Homegrown SoCs: All 66 Kgs of Them
    [12:47] schestowitz
    [12:47] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 404 @ https://www.tomshardware.com/news/first-baikal-socs-delivered-to-russia">Russia ) [12:47] schestowitz

    Baikal Electronics, a chip designer from Russia, has received the first commercial batch of its Baikal-M system-on-chips from manufacturing partner TSMC. The SoCs will enable Baikal's partners like iRU to start production of 'all-Russian' PCs, yet the volumes of chips that Baikal can procure from TSMC will hardly let such computers to compete against x86-based systems in terms of volumes.

    • [12:51] *psydroid2 (~psydroid@cqggrmwgu7gji.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Oct 17 [13:05] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [13:05] *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [13:08] *liberty_box (~liberty@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #techbytes [13:08] *rianne (~rianne@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #techbytes [13:53] *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [13:53] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Oct 17 [14:00] *rianne (~rianne@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #techbytes [14:01] *liberty_box (~liberty@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #techbytes [14:57] *Despatche (~desp@u3xy9z2ifjzci.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Oct 17 [15:19] schestowitz https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/10/breaking-mercer-review-on-uk-patent.html?showComment=1634296028929 [15:19] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | BREAKING: Mercer Review on UK patent attorney exams released - The IPKat [15:19] schestowitz " [15:19] schestowitz 44 Comments: [15:19] schestowitz Anonymous [15:19] schestowitz Absolutely classic- despite being 2.5 years in the making it gets released the Friday before exam week. Echoes of when it was announced the 2018 paper had some "issues" the week before EQEs. When you've delayed that length of time surely a few more days makes sense to give candidates some breathing space during exams? [15:19] schestowitz Reply [15:19] schestowitz Anonymous [15:19] schestowitz I'm glad Mercer has finally come out though I doubt nothing will change. [15:19] schestowitz They have missed a trick though with online exams. The IT online move this year and requirements appear to be even more complex and once again, all burden is on the candidates (for everything). Why is that more and more burden is placed on candidates taking exams. It has taken a significant amount of time away from preparations. Not to mention the 2 mock exams because they screwed up the first one. [15:19] schestowitz Reply [15:19] schestowitz Replies [15:19] schestowitz Anonymous [15:19] schestowitz I couldn't agree with this more - I think this year's online exam is much more complicated for candidates and employers and once again, it places much more emphasis and burden on candidates. The goal=post seemed to have significantly shifted last year. I would have preferred the much simpler approach last year. [15:19] schestowitz Mercer could address why the burden is shifting more over to candidates. They should not be worrying about set up and IT requirements but instead focus on preparing for the exams. I know candidates at my firm had to buy new printers, some of them buying new phones, speakers etc.. as they are not compatible with the current system. It also adds a lot of pressure on the firms too - no one can go into work that week whilst candidates take their exams. [15:19] schestowitz Anonymous [15:19] schestowitz Hi Anon, don't forget that the Mercer Review is reporting on the points raised by those that responded to the call for action. The fact the burden is shifting over to candidates wasn't raised, so it can't be addressed. [15:19] schestowitz In addition, this is the PEB and IPReg's duty to make sure the exams are adequate - not CIPA (of which the Mercer Review was commissioned and formed). [15:19] schestowitz Anonymous [15:19] schestowitz Maybe this needs to be looked at because I completely agree that there is no too much on the shoulder of candidates. Last year was a fair balance. This year, things seemed to have gotten more complex for them. [15:19] schestowitz Reply [15:19] schestowitz Anonymous [15:19] schestowitz It will take another 10 years to implement any recommendations. Its ridiculous how long this took. [15:19] schestowitz Reply [15:19] schestowitz Anonymous [15:20] schestowitz Still doesn't really address the issue of the unfit for purpose examination of FD4 - What's the point of it? It is far better and realistic as a coursework assessment. No client will pay you or indeed take your advice to request "injunctions" or sue others/stop their commercial activities based on 4 hours advice on infringement and validity. There are so many other matters in the commercial world that influences a company's decision to sue or not, [15:20] schestowitz and most of this is relevant to the actual infringement or validity assessment. [15:20] schestowitz Reply [15:20] schestowitz Anonymous [15:20] schestowitz Some suggestions seems plausible like standardising trainees learning but in practice, it is very difficult to achieve this. The fundamentals of why exams are so time pressured especially in FD4 and its relevance could do with more addressing but as I haven't fully read the document, I shall reserve judgement. [15:20] schestowitz I would have thought a more modular approach throughout the year like the EQEs is moving towards would make more sense for the modern profession and the new way of working life. Having a set of exams once a year is really old-fashioned and out of date. [15:20] schestowitz Reply [15:20] schestowitz Anonymous [15:20] schestowitz I agree that exams should focus on simple basic standards for attorneys and that the purpose of the exam is not to provide more and more complicated subject matter or clever obscure pieces of law/area. Unfortunately, the exams have gotten more complicated and much harder to digest and understand as years gone by. Take FD4 for example, the amount of materials required to analyse, and candidates to understand complex subject matter in infringement and [15:20] schestowitz novelty sections is too much. It is no longer testing basics. There is far too much to read and analyse in the time given. It is also very repetitive. Claims should be shorter allowing candidates more time to actually reach their judgements + provide reasons to do so rather than rushing to the finish line. [15:20] schestowitz FD2 is another example. Testing simple drafting skills should not require candidates to be confused about the subject matter. They should understand it and draft a simple claim that covers the invention but recent exams have made it very complex etc... [15:20] schestowitz Reply [15:20] schestowitz Anonymous [15:20] schestowitz is there anything in the Mercer report to justify the eye watering 500 fees per final exam. This is a barrier, especially to those who have to pay from their own pockets as their firms no longer supports them. I cannot see why this cost is so high especially if we are moving towards computer based exams and all the burden (as someone pointed out earlier) is now placed on candidates to get their equipment correct. [15:20] schestowitz Reply [15:20] schestowitz Anonymous [15:20] schestowitz I am no fan of FD4. There is one recommendation that gives me hope: [15:20] schestowitz "FD4 should be limited to requiring the candidates to demonstrate that they can construe a set of claims according to the case law in the UK, evaluate prior art, determine whether the claims as construed are novel and inventive over that prior art and determine whether the activities of a potential infringer are infringing acts under UK law and should not require detailed advice on points not relevant to the main topics" [15:20] schestowitz I might be overly optimistic, but it sounds like they want a more focused exam. The reference to UK law and construction is interesting. If this means construction requires you to apply UK law, this is much better than the current format. E.g. 2016 paper lightweight meant whatever the examiners said it meant (even using client letter to support their view!!??), no need to consider Catnic or any pesky authority on the matter [15:20] schestowitz Reply [15:20] schestowitz Replies [15:20] schestowitz Anonymous [15:20] schestowitz I read this as a push-back to the recent drift increasing the marks for the advice section, so that the advice section became effectively an FD1 part B question in itself. The duplication in scope is entirely unnecessary. It would also make marking easier as there is less dependence on what the 'correct' advice is based on conclusions on validity and infringement. [15:20] schestowitz It would also mean the syllabus for FD4 could be trimmed further and the risk of marks being given for aspects that were not in the syllabus (hello 2019) reduced. [15:20] schestowitz Reply [15:20] schestowitz Anonymous [15:20] schestowitz FD4 exam is especially over-complicated in recent years and more materials keeps getting added to it. They need to reduce its complexity. You are required to do far too much in the available time. Construction, infringement, novelty, inventive step, sufficiency, amendments, advice. There is far too much reading and analysing to do. They could make the documents more easily digestible by labelling the figures for you give the time. They want a [15:20] schestowitz detailed inventive step argumentation but provide little time for candidates to reach that section. [15:20] schestowitz Reply [15:20] schestowitz Anonymous [15:20] schestowitz For 2.5 years of consideration, this report seems quite vague and does not seem to offer much in the way of concrete next steps. Yes, we all agree the exams need changing. How will this happen? By when? Will candidates wait another 2.5 years? [15:20] schestowitz Reply [15:20] schestowitz Cynic [15:20] schestowitz I don't mean to disparage the huge amount of work that has gone into reviewing and collating all of the responses to the consultation, but... *that's it?* [15:20] schestowitz Remember that what sparked all of this was an increasing volume of complaints about FD4 (P6) in particular. With regard to overhauling this most controversial of the Finals papers, all the report recommends is that: [15:20] schestowitz "FD4 should be limited to requiring the candidates to demonstrate that they can construe a set of claims according to the case law in the UK, evaluate prior art, determine whether the claims as construed are novel and inventive over that prior art and determine whether the activities of a [15:20] schestowitz potential infringer are infringing acts under UK law and should not require detailed advice on points not relevant to the main topics." [15:20] schestowitz This says absolutely nothing about the key concerns shared by many candidates and trainers, namely the sheer volume of material to consider, the proliferation of multiple prior art documents / multiple embodiments / multiple potential infringements that have been seen more and more frequently in recent years, and the time pressure imposed on candidates as a result. [15:20] schestowitz One could make a reasonable case that even the most egregiously lengthy FD4/P6 papers of recent years did not stray beyond the remit of construing claims, evaluating prior art, assessing novelty and inventive step, and determining whether or not any infringing acts had occurred. That was never seriously in doubt. The review's recommendation in this respect therefore seems to entirely miss the point. [15:20] schestowitz Based on this, I cannot share the optimism of Anon at 14:48 (above), even if there are token nods to "examination creep" elsewhere in the report, given that "examination creep" appears to be a term which is linked only with duplication of material across multiple papers rather than being focused on the central substance and methodology of the most controversial papers. [15:21] schestowitz As someone who sat and passed all of the UK papers almost a decade ago, and who will therefore not be directly impacted by any actions taken or not taken in response to the report, I have to say that this feels like a big missed opportunity to address the central issue that has exercised so many people over the years, even if some of the other recommendations regarding attempts to standardise the "non-Finals" aspects of training more generally are [15:21] schestowitz to be welcomed. [15:21] schestowitz Reply [15:21] schestowitz Anonymous [15:21] schestowitz I too agree with Cynic. There is far too little detail on FD4. The biggest problem with FD4 as seen over recent years is the sheer volume of materials to analyse and read. Its far too much and then to be expected to complete each section in detail. Its wholly unrealistic! [15:21] schestowitz Please reconsider FD4. Its not fit for purpose and I really don't see how these recommendations would change anything about FD4. [15:21] schestowitz Reply [15:21] schestowitz Anonymous [15:21] schestowitz Good suggestion about a pathway for qualifying as a trademark attorney. I got completely done over by picking a firm that did foundations. [15:21] schestowitz Good idea to have a common set of foundation exams no matter the training route. Will be great to see all the firms cry when they realise the pass rate for 5 foundations (i.e. becoming part qualified as per QM) in 1 year is around 20%. Or maybe they will rejoice - lower wages for longer. [15:21] schestowitz Anyway, big power grab by the PEB (all foundations exams -> controlled by PEB, Litigation skills -> more of it to be controlled by PEB...). Maybe it is a good time to question what proper educational experience members of the PEB actually have....? [15:21] schestowitz Reply [15:21] schestowitz Replies [15:21] schestowitz Anonymous [15:21] schestowitz It is not a recommendation by the PEB to have a common set of foundation exams. I understand the PEB does not particularly support this recommendation. [15:21] schestowitz Reply [15:21] schestowitz Anonymous [15:21] schestowitz Given how much in these exams depends on exam technique, not providing the marking schemes would take away one of the few tools candidates have in preparation for these exams. How can you give a "holistic" answer when you do not have sufficient information about what is required of you? [15:21] schestowitz Reply [15:21] schestowitz Replies [15:21] schestowitz Anonymous [15:21] schestowitz Especially as the "Examiner's remarks" usually aren't really worth much - they typically just contain scathing remarks that the candidates failed solely because they weren't good enough to pass. [15:21] schestowitz Anonymous [15:21] schestowitz This is a very good point- getting more detailed examiner's reports/ mark schemes is the only guidance candidates have for is expected in FD4. The exam is already totally changeable year on year with goalposts moving at random - having no mark scheme seems a backwards step. [15:21] schestowitz Anonymous [15:21] schestowitz Getting rid of mark schemes will only favour those who take courses and those in larger firms as they can afford more resources. Once again, candidates in smaller firms or smaller in house firms will struggle. [15:21] schestowitz How are candidates suppose to learn and pass an exam without no mark schemes and knowing what they are learning will be correct. It is such a bizzare suggestion. [15:21] schestowitz Reply [15:21] schestowitz Anonymous [15:21] schestowitz I'm confused how getting rid of mark schemes would be good for students, especially for those who can't afford to go on courses. That is crucial learning material being taken away. [15:21] schestowitz It seems bizarre how removing mark schemes can improve training. How can candidates revise if they don't know what they have practice is right or wrong. This is one of the biggest issues of FD4 - nobody knows what is deemed the perfect answer. No one knows what is expected of them. [15:21] schestowitz If you are going to get rid of mark schemes for exams, why did they not consider coursework route or university route? [15:21] schestowitz Reply [15:21] schestowitz Anonymous [15:21] schestowitz PEB exams have been a tool used by many firms as an excuse to suppress wages. [15:21] schestowitz The changes recommended here would not reallt help candidates training, experience and their pay packages. One point i do agree with is that the exams have become too long and complex. Apart from that, I really don't see much will change from this review. [15:21] schestowitz Reply [15:21] schestowitz Replies [15:21] schestowitz Anonymous [15:21] schestowitz Totally agree. Wages for UK attorneys have been suppressed compared to their counterparts around the world for a long time. PEB exams certainly have a hand in helping to keep wages LOW in this profession. [15:22] schestowitz Anonymous [15:22] schestowitz Wages have historically been kept low and it seems likely that the PEB exams, especially the artificial FD4 exam, has been a big contributor to that low wage. However, I know some firms around London are increasingly disregarding examinations in their annual review to decide on career progression and wages based on individual performance at the firm. I hope that many firms will follow suit. Off course there is a benefit to passing exams but not [15:22] schestowitz everything should be weighted on them. Firms are beginning to see this now and there is increased competition for EQE qualified and/or near-qualified attorneys. [15:22] schestowitz Anonymous [15:22] schestowitz Alot of firms have been reasonable with wages recently as far as I understand. The PeB exams are mostly irrelevant to everyday practice and workload and some firms do recognise this. It was touched on lightly by Mercer but really, there needs to be an independent review on the impact or significant these PEB exams have on modern attorney practice. [15:22] schestowitz I (like the majority of attorneys) deal mostly with European cases. There is very very little work on I&V projects in my firm over the 10 years I've been in the profession. [15:22] schestowitz Anonymous [15:22] schestowitz Other firms however use qualification as a means to cap pay- in some cases with "trainees" having 7/8/9 years experience but missing one UK exam are paid the same as they were in their 2nd and 3rd year since the only route to the next pay band is qualification. [15:22] schestowitz Reply [15:22] schestowitz Anonymous [15:22] schestowitz For an organisation which prides itself in the scientific training of its membership, the comment in the Mercer report that the reports analysing statistics on PEB examinations written by Julia Gwilt indicated that candidates who had passed FC1 were more successful than other candidates is surprising. Julia Gilwits report from 2019 actually noted that there were no statistically significant differences in the pass rates between [15:22] schestowitz candidates taking different routes and indeed in 2018 the pass rate in FD4 for candidates who did not take the PEB route was actually higher than for those who did. Rather other factors, such as the level of experience of trainees sitting the exams and the training and support that they received were much more important. [15:22] schestowitz Too many of the reports proposals seem ill thought through and unduly prescriptive. It is nave at best to think that the current university providers will happily convert their current courses into examination prep for a CIPA exam. If they do not then candidates will simply end up sitting exams twice, once to satisfy the university providers and then again to satisfy CIPA. Or else, the university providers will shut up shop and the burden to [15:22] schestowitz teaching trainees the basics of intellectual property law will be handed back to the profession. [15:22] schestowitz Similarly, abolishing the EQE exemption would also mean more exams all round. An easy thing to propose if you are already qualified, less attractive if you arent, ignoring that is the time and costs which will be involved in getting trainees prepared for the exams and getting those exams marked. [15:22] schestowitz Is this really what the profession needs now, given that the vast majority of the work undertaken by the larger training firms now is before the EPO and not the UKIPO? [15:22] schestowitz Reply [15:22] schestowitz Miss opportunity [15:22] schestowitz It feels like a missed opportunity here. I really would have hoped FD4 issues would be tackled. I didn't see much exploration around coursework or modular examinations (like the EQEs are moving to) at all. [15:22] schestowitz Having the same old system (but worse - getting rid of mark schemes so that candidates are really in the dark) feels like a complete waste of opportunity to radically shake up the PEB examination system. [15:22] schestowitz It needs to reflect modern way of life and practice. Nowadays, not many candidates do UK work at all or very little of it and this should somewhat be reflected here. I'm not saying that FD4 contents should not be tested, but I feel there are plenty of other ways to test this. [15:22] schestowitz Reply [15:22] schestowitz Anonymous [15:22] schestowitz The recommendation to have all trainees take the foundation exams seems almost a joke... [15:22] schestowitz "The Mercer Review notes statistics that candidates who sat the foundation exams were more successful in the Final Diploma examinations." [15:22] schestowitz Of course this is the case, they are largely just filtering for people who are good at passing exams! [15:22] schestowitz Compare the UK vs Australian system for FD4: The UK exam teaches a student how to rush through and prepare a 'just good enough' opinion, aiming for that elusive 50% mark, and barely reviewing the material due to the contrived examination setting. [15:22] schestowitz In contrast, a typical Australian FD4 equivalent here: (https://handbook.uts.edu.au/subjects/details/77895.html) is a semester long course with 10 modules and 4 assignments, presumably allowing a trainee to fully grasp the concepts and prepare opinions in a more normal time scale. [15:22] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-handbook.uts.edu.au | UTS:77895 Interpretation and Validity of Patent Specifications - Law,UTS Handbook [15:22] schestowitz For a profession that is all about the detail, which do you think has a better learning outcome for providing complicated IV legal advice? [15:22] schestowitz Reply [15:22] schestowitz Replies [15:22] schestowitz Anonymous [15:22] schestowitz Agreed. It's always a rush job and some sections are badly executed due to the extreme time pressure and complex materials. It actually has the opposite effect as I do not feel much confidence giving an infringement and validity opinion to clients now and I've passed FD4 3 years ago now. I got the magic 50% so just crawled over the line somehow. I hope my confidence improves as I progress. In real life (my situation anyway) there are multiple [15:22] schestowitz Attorneys working on I and V projects with checks and regular interactions with the client. it similar to what you do when drafting a notice of opposition - there are multiple Attorneys and we make sure we give ourselves sufficient time before submission. [15:22] schestowitz Reply [15:22] schestowitz Anonymous [15:22] schestowitz They keep packing more and more issues in FD4 and the time given is not sufficient to be able to deal with all these issues plus find the nuances of the paper. It's far too much to do and it really is going we'll beyond scope of the paper. Far too much packed in FD4. [15:22] schestowitz Reply [15:22] schestowitz Anonymous [15:22] schestowitz Moving online is a good move. My concern is that it is always more difficult to check answers on screen compared to on paper as there are probably more minor mistakes by typing but also, there now a fear that more will be added to the papers because candidates can type. One would hope the review addresses how 1. Materials in paper are not increasing and 2. How candidates/examiners account for the inevitably more errors due to typing errors on screen. [15:23] schestowitz In a time pressured environment, it is difficult to spot. [15:23] schestowitz Reply [15:23] schestowitz Replies [15:23] schestowitz Anonymous [15:23] schestowitz Very true. Much harder to spot errors on screen and time pressure examinations definitely contributes to this. [15:23] schestowitz Reply [15:23] schestowitz Anonymous [15:23] schestowitz Does anyone has a link to the full report? [15:23] schestowitz Reply [15:23] schestowitz Replies [15:23] schestowitz Anonymous [15:23] schestowitz It's in the latest CIPA journal [15:23] schestowitz Joel David Briscoe [15:23] schestowitz Hi Anon, [15:23] schestowitz https://www.cipa.org.uk/journal/ is the link for the full report. This link is behind a CIPA membership wall, so if you don't have that, reach out and I can give you a PDF copy. [15:23] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.cipa.org.uk | Journal Issues Archive - CIPA [15:23] schestowitz Ta, [15:23] schestowitz J [15:23] schestowitz Anonymous [15:23] schestowitz https://www.cipa.org.uk/news/review-aims-to-modernise-and-improve-patent-attorney-training-in-the-uk/ [15:23] schestowitz Reply [15:23] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-www.cipa.org.uk | Review aims to modernise and improve patent attorney training in the UK - CIPA [15:23] schestowitz Anonymous [15:23] schestowitz I do agree with alot of recommendations in the Mercer review. It is true that the PEB exams have gotten very complicated especially FD4. There is alot of overlap with FD1 in the advice section but recently they have started to introduced other law issues like priority issues into FD4. This issue and many other legal issues have been extensively tested in FD1 so its a bit unfair to load complex issues into FD4 too. The FD4 paper is already [15:23] schestowitz overwhelmingly long in my view and needs to be shortened and simplified. The PEB exams is to test basic competences of I&V in FD4 and we should remember this. It should not be used as a springboard to load various complex issues in multiple papers (mainly cross over between FD1 and FD4). [15:23] schestowitz For FD1, I agree that it should be open book and not a memory test. Sound Advice given to client should not be reliant on memory and you wouldn't do this in real life. There are sometimes obscure topics and it should try to be eliminated. [15:23] schestowitz I'm not sure that getting rid of mark schemes will help but if they do, what is the replacement? The option of training the trainer is good but in smaller firms, how many Attorneys will give up time and billable hours to help train trainees. Also, this must be standardised so that all trainees get a basic level of training. From my experience, training is very different across the firms and there is no standardised training for final examinations. [15:23] schestowitz Reply [15:23] schestowitz Anonymous [15:23] schestowitz Basic and standardised learning for final examination varies so much across the profession. Some firms may not want to share their training and development programme with their competitors. [15:23] schestowitz One (radical) suggestion is that CIPA levies a fee on firms or charge a fee to candidates to access a series of lectures similar to the EPI lectures ran for pre EQE. [15:23] schestowitz This at least ensure those candidates in smaller firms or in house get the benefit of basic expectation and training for final exams. [15:23] schestowitz I'm sure most firm would be happy to pay for this as long as the fees are not horrendous. [15:23] schestowitz CIPA can run these courses for FD1, FD2, FD3 and FD4 to ensure fairness and standardise learning. [15:23] schestowitz Reply [15:23] schestowitz Anonymous [15:23] schestowitz I do appreciate Mercer and his fellow colleagues for taking the time to do this review (although it did take a long time to publish). I do think Mercer could recommend more radical changes to the current system. To me, FD4, clearly needs to be slimed down significantly. There needs to be more communication as to what examiners want for FD4 and other papers too. Particularly FD4 is a difficult exam to prepare for given that there has been so much [15:23] schestowitz variation in standards, subject matter and material content year to year. [15:23] schestowitz My concerns about final examination still therefore remains especially for FD4. It is no secret that this exam has been overloaded with so much material to analyse under extreme time pressure. I would have hoped that there are more concrete steps to ensure this does not happen. It seems that PEB may take the points on board but they could equally ignore it. Therefore, wouldn't it also be useful to get IPREG involved if (like most in the profession) [15:23] schestowitz people would like to see changes and the recommendations in the review to be implemented for final exams. [15:23] schestowitz Reply [15:23] schestowitz CS [15:24] schestowitz The UKIPO provides very good and detailed opinions on infringement and validity. I would be keen to know whether they needed to take a test that is similar to FD4 to be able to provide that same level of work. It would make sense to see what the requirements are and training that are required from the UKIPO for their staff to be able to issue I&V opinion. [15:24] schestowitz Reply [15:24] schestowitz Askfi [15:24] schestowitz It's not only examination creep that's the problem, it's examination overload too particularly for FD4. [15:24] schestowitz " [15:24] schestowitz https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2021/10/conference-report-whither-will.html?showComment=1634129805597 [15:24] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-ipkitten.blogspot.com | [Conference report] Whither will bifurcation go? A critical discussion on Germany's bifurcated patent proceedings - The IPKat [15:24] schestowitz " [15:24] schestowitz 6 Comments: [15:24] schestowitz What justifies bifurcation?Monday, 11 October 2021 at 14:27:00 BST [15:24] schestowitz It would be interesting to know why Germany has at decided for a bifurcated route. Dealing separately infringement and validity does not seem logical. [15:24] schestowitz Normally, there cannot be infringement if a patent is not valid. [15:24] schestowitz The question is thus why such an injunction gap has at all be created. [15:24] schestowitz On the other hand, the German Supreme Court (BGH)is well known for its pro-patentee position. [15:24] schestowitz Requesting the German Patent Federal Court (BPatG)to deliver its decisions within a tight time schedule without giving it the staffing needed is not very coherent. [15:24] schestowitz The argument that by having a bifurcation the costs are lower only applies when the basis fee for infringement is way lower as the basis fee for nullity. [15:24] schestowitz The question to be answered is thus quite different: is the bifurcated system not unduly favouring the patentee to the detriment of a potential infringer? [15:24] schestowitz I would say the reply is positive and to reduce the injunction gap would simply be to order a stay if the validity is challenged. If it turns out that the stay was lacking a proper basis and is simply to gain time or even boils down to deceitful manoeuvres, the corresponding penalties for infringement could be increased by a certain percentage. [15:24] schestowitz It should not be forgotten that the judges at the BPatG are mainly technically qualified judges which can even return to the German Patent Office after having served on the BPatG. [15:24] schestowitz Reply [15:24] schestowitz AnonymousTuesday, 12 October 2021 at 16:46:00 BST [15:24] schestowitz In Germany, infringement is determined by the Lnder. A patent is granted by the Bund (Federal state). It is not possible for the court of a Land to annul a property right granted by the Federal state, hence the infringement courts of the Lnder are mainly concerned with the Infringement issue. Revocation can only be promulgated by the Federal Patent Court in Munich, with appeals to the Constitutional court. [15:24] schestowitz So it is not a matter of Germany "deciding" for a bifurcated route. Bifurcation is a hack to get around constraints imposed by the German constitutional settlement. A German correspondent might wish to "circle back" with more detail, and particularly to what extent the Infringement courts of the Lnder are allowed to consider validity during the infringement trial (for procedural/case management reasons on a prima facie basis?). [15:24] schestowitz Reply [15:24] schestowitz What justifies bifurcation?Wednesday, 13 October 2021 at 09:47:00 BST [15:24] schestowitz Thanks for the explanations. [15:24] schestowitz The problem is thus a question of coordination between the judicial authorities of the Lnder and the Federal Patent Court. [15:24] schestowitz I would nevertheless think that it does not bring much to decide on infringement before having decided on validity. [15:24] schestowitz This is the more so since both procedures end up in the Federal Court (BGH). [15:24] schestowitz The problem is to be solved, but this needs a political will. [15:24] schestowitz Reply [15:24] schestowitz KantWednesday, 13 October 2021 at 12:31:00 BST [15:24] schestowitz The local courts are capable of deciding on the validity of a utility model on an inter partes basis. Since the validity of a patent would involve the same considerations, there is no real reason for patent infringement matters to consider validity at such a superficial level other than that because the patent is an examined right there is the presumption of validity. [15:24] schestowitz Reply [15:24] schestowitz AnonymousWednesday, 13 October 2021 at 13:30:00 BST [15:24] schestowitz As Patentee, it's great if you can have a positive decision on infringement and leave the tricky issue of validity for another year or two...! [15:24] schestowitz Reply [15:24] schestowitz AnonymousWednesday, 13 October 2021 at 13:56:00 BST [15:24] schestowitz "The problem is thus a question of coordination between the judicial authorities of the Lnder and the Federal Patent Court." [15:24] schestowitz This is doe-eyed innocence, implicitly assuming that it would be a good thing for the gap to disappear. [15:24] schestowitz A DE patent has been examined by the mighty DPMA, and assumed to be valid from the point of grant. Analogously for an EP(DE). In fact, if the DE patent or EP(DE) has survived an opposition, the presumption is so strong that a preliminary injunction can be obtained much more easily. [15:25] schestowitz So the default assumption is that the patent is valid. Why would an infringement court need to bother itself about validity? It is being asked to adjudicate based on a patent that must be valid, by virtue of the patent's own existence. Questions of validity at that point are somewhat vulgar, and besmirch the reputation of the respected DPMA. [15:25] schestowitz Patentees in German industry, too, have not expensively and laboriously amassed portfolios of tens of thousands of DE patents each with a scope of protection measurable only in angstroms, only to be told that they may not enforce them when the time is right. That would be an outrage. Questions of patent validity are a trifling distraction to the main goal - that of bankrupting the competition. [15:25] schestowitz Think too of the respected lawyers of Oberkassel (Dusseldorf) or Solln (Munich) and the associated brave estate agents, car showrooms, housekeepers, decorators, gardeners, restaurants, au pairs, and private schools sustained by dint of honest exploitation of the injunction gap to the benefit of the clients of these lawyers, without fear or favour. [15:25] schestowitz No, the injunction gap is a great trickle-down success story of the modern German economy. Anybody arguing otherwise is simply jealous that they don't have the required monies to survive an 18 month preliminary injunction. Mind the Gap and zum Wohl! [15:25] schestowitz " ● Oct 17 [16:04] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:04] *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [16:06] *rianne (~rianne@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #techbytes [16:07] *liberty_box (~liberty@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Oct 17 [17:53] *rianne has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [17:53] *liberty_box has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) [17:53] *liberty_box (~liberty@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #techbytes [17:53] *rianne (~rianne@62vhapicsw4ds.irc) has joined #techbytes [17:58] *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@m5zeaqc3kavpg.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Oct 17 [19:35] *DaemonFC has quit (Quit: Leaving) ● Oct 17 [20:41] *DaemonFC (~daemonfc@zgpii63xn2s5s.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Oct 17 [22:10] *psydroid2 has quit (connection closed)