Take Home Points from the CIPA FD1 Seminar

A couple of weeks ago I attended a talk given by Julia-Gwilt (10 years at the PEB, now working with epi) of Appleyard Lees and Janet Chisem (Principal Examiner for FD1) of Unilever.

It became immediately apparent that the format of the exam (i.e. online or in person) is decided by the PEB governance board and not the Examiners, and the two speakers made it clear they were here to talk about the substantive issues of FD1 and not general PEB policy or procedures.

There was many a discussion about how the Examiners perform quality assurance on the questions (this poor blogger has to rely on me myself and I for the coffee table questions), and other procedural aspects to do with marking and standardization processes. As interesting as these intricacies of the PEB are, I propose not to discuss them on this blog given its aims and charitable nature, and would ask you kindly to do the same. In this article I wanted to pull out what I think are going to be the most useful points of this talk for prospective candidates who are revising for FD1.

Resources Recommended by the Speakers

There was nothing groundbreaking here. The availability of past papers, mark schemes, sample scripts, and examiner’s reports was pointed out as a valuable resource for seeing what is in store for prosepective candidates, and this will not surprise anyone using this blog.

They mentioned, of course, the syllabus, of particular note is the updated reading list at the end of the FD1 syllabus which candidates may find useful, in particular for the design law changes and the like which occurred this year. In fact, all of the useful information can be found via this link.

The speakers highlighted that it is not just the UK law you are required to learn, but that you may be examined about the PCT and the EPC also (and indeed, some aspects of US and Japanese law according to the syllabus and reflected in the past papers). It’s a common trend to leave revising the PCT until the last few weeks. My view is the PCT is a great thing to revise regularly because we deal with it in practise all of the time, and it will stand you in good stead for both the PEBs and the EQEs.

Accuracy Matters

It was emphasized that the examiners expect accuracy in the language you use when you answer. Everyone knows that anything on the mark scheme in bold requires near verbatim recitation. My own view is why give the examiners any questions about whether you know the law? My advice would be to use whatever revision materials you like, but use the language of the actual law wherever possible. For example, in s39 it is normal duties not usual duties, in section 60 it is ‘a person other than a licensee or other person entitled to work the invention’ not an ‘party who is not allowed’ or any other things, and in section 7 the inventor is the ‘actual deviser of the invention’ and not ‘the party who claims to have invented something’.

Take great care to spot whether the law is being paraphrased for key statuatory provisions in your revision materials, and make a point of learning the language of the law and sticking to it - don’t give the examiners any reason to doubt that you know it.

Another interesting and related point was that Janet mentioned that any acronyms (MODIUK, DADDI-C, DID etc.) must be written out in full at least once. I found this curious because of course everyone here knows what MUDIOK means right? I guess you are supposed to be advising a client and you certainly wouldn’t blurt out a ‘MUDOIK!’ in the middle of a meeting without explaining it.

Finally, the speakers felt that colloquialisms are not sufficient and are often losing candidates easy marks. The example given was ‘full prior art’ instead of spelling out ‘prior art citable for novelty and inventive step’.

I guess the take home message from this section is - don’t take shortcuts which may give the examiners a reason to doubt your knowledge.

The speakers said that many, many people mess their dates up, and sometimes simply by not knowing how many days are in a month. I can understand why people mightn’t bother to learn this, but please either double check your dates as you write your answer, or leave time to go back and check it once you complete your answer. You will be gutted if you get 49 marks and mess up an opposition or renewal deadline.

Question Spotting

This was, of course, strongly discouraged by the speakers. There are no rules when it comes to setting a paper, and though they aim to test a breadth and depth of knowledge they could discuss anything that is on the syllabus. As such, do not try to predict, based on last years paper, what will come up this year. It’s a complete gamble and though we all have topics we find harder to retain, you’ll be better off for learning the relevant topics fully.

Giving a Complete Answer

In terms of the level of detail of writing, they made it clear that many people lose marks by glossing over parts of showing their working. In these instances, though it may be clear to the examiners that you knew the point you glossed over, they cannot award the mark if it is not on the paper. The IRAC(A?) formula is my solution for forcing you to show your working, and I’d encourage you to use it and hold yourself accountable.

Where there is an issue where the conclusion isn’t clear, the speakers felt that it was often the case that you should not sit on the fence, but instead go with a reasoned conclusion. If the conclusion is an obvious one, it should slap you in the face from the question. If it isn’t obvious, then do show both sides of the coin and that should get you a lot of the available marks anyway. Apply the law to the facts of the question, and then use your judgement as to whether you can answer it clearly.

When you’re applying the law to an ambiguous situation, you are expected to consider the alternatives. It is said that people will explore only one side, even going so far as to state one side in full and completely ignore the other alternative. Remember as you write your answer to look at the situation and if you can’t draw a conclusion provide both conclusions available from the information at hand.

Summing Up

In summary, be full in your answer, use the wording of the law, be accurate with dates, don’t rely on revision materials and their colloquialisms, and don’t give the examiners any excuse to doubt your abilities.

As it happens, if you have some useful acronyms for the law, please do share them in the comments. Mine are as follows:

Infringing acts - MODUKI

Make, Offer to dispose, Dispose, Use, Keep, Import.

Remedies for infringement - DADDI-C

Damages/Account of profits, Delivery up or destruction of infringing product, Declaration that the patent was infringed, Injunction preventing further infringement, and Costs.

Remedies for an unjustified threat - DID

Damages, Injuction preventing continuance of threats, Declaration that a threat was unjustified.

I look forward to hearing yours!