Qualifying Examinations (QE)

How Qualifying Examinations are marked

This text aims to provide candidates with information on the procedures involved in marking their scripts. It is hoped that this will allay concerns expressed by some candidates about the lack of transparency and/or rigour and fairness in the setting, marking and awarding processes.

The setting of examination papers is the responsibility of the Principal Examiner (1). Detailed Instructions for the Setting of the Examination papers and Mark Schemes are issued to assist Principal Examiners. These include advice on ensuring that, for Foundation examinations, every question falls within the syllabus, there is appropriate coverage of topics within each paper and there is sufficient coverage of all topics over time. For Finals examinations, advice is given to ensure that all the syllabus learning outcomes are covered in each examination. There are separate meetings of Foundation and Finals Principal Examiners together with the Chief Examiner and a patent attorney Governance Board member to discuss all papers alongside feedback from testers. Testers (normally two, one recently qualified patent attorney and one more experienced) sit the paper blind of the mark scheme, following which, they review their answers in light of the mark scheme. As a result of discussion at the meeting and feedback from testers, amendments may be made to the questions and associated mark schemes.

Prior to examinations being held, examiners are issued with Marking and Awarding Instructions; there are separate documents for Foundation and Finals examiners. These documents outline the duties of examiners and include information on standardisation of marking, marks reconciliation and the Awarding meeting. A summary of these processes are given below.

If an examiner has personal knowledge of a candidate, or teaches on courses that prepare students for Qualifying Examinations, they are required to complete and submit a Declaration of Conflict of Interest form. Whilst scripts are marked anonymously using a candidate number, if there is a conflict with a candidate, a Finals script will be allocated to a non-conflicted examiner. Where there is only one examiner, as in the majority of Foundation examinations, the marking of a ‘conflicted’ script will be checked by another examiner, normally the Chief Examiner. If an examiner is also a mentor, trainer or teacher, guidance is given to avoid any breach of examination confidentiality.

Standardisation

Following sitting of an examination, the Chief Examiner selects 3 scripts from each Foundation exam to be marked and used to standardise marking. For Finals examinations, each Principal Examiner selects 5 scripts for standardisation marking. All Marking Examiners are then required to mark these papers and submit their marks prior to a Standardisation meeting (separate meetings are held for each exam).

Examiners are requested to mark up to five additional scripts which may be included in discussion at the meeting. Standardisation meetings include the Principal Examiner, all Marking Examiners, the Chief Examiner (Foundation papers only), and a patent attorney and lay member of the Governance Board. At the standardisation meeting, the marks awarded to the standardisation scripts by all examiners are reviewed and differences discussed. The outcome of such discussion is to define an agreed approach to marking particular questions or sections, which may require amendments to the mark scheme. Examiners may raise issues arising from the marking of any additional scripts particularly if they raise questions about a candidate who has used a different approach that was not anticipated in the mark scheme. Decisions will be taken as to whether such an approach is valid and should be included in the mark scheme. Following the Standardisation meeting, the Principal examiner will issue all examiners a copy of the final mark scheme in preparation for marking all scripts; scripts considered at the standardisation meeting will be re-marked in light of the final mark scheme.

Marking

Examiners are allocated their proportion of scripts and a deadline for submission of marks. New examiners receive a smaller allocation of scripts compared to experienced examiners and a selection of their marked scripts is reviewed by the Principal Examiner. Foundation scripts are marked by one examiner (normally the Principal Examiner) whilst Final papers are double marked. For both Foundation and Finals examinations the pass mark is 50 or 50% in exceptions when the mark scheme total is not 100.

Reconciliation of marks in Finals Examinations:

(a.) Conflating Marks

Where both examiners have awarded a pass mark or both examiners have awarded a fail mark and the difference between the marks is less than 11 (5 for FD1 between 45 and 55), Patent Examination Board administration will total the marks and the mean mark will be shown as the one awarded.

(b.) Significant Marks Difference

Where both examiners have awarded a pass mark or both examiners have awarded a fail mark and the difference between the marks is 11 or more (5 or more for FD1), the Principal Examiner will ask the examiners involved in marking to review their marks in discussion with each other and the Principal Examiner. Each marking examiner then confirms with the Principal Examiner that (i) a new mark is to be awarded or (ii) their original mark stands. This discussion must consider if the script meets the requirements of the Minimum Pass Descriptor (see Appendix 1) if relevant (see below).

(c.) Pass/Fail

Where two examiners have respectively marked a ‘fail’ and a ‘pass’, this will be noted as an exception for review. The Principal Examiner will ask the examiners involved in marking to review their marks in discussion with each other and the Principal Examiner. This discussion must consider if the script meets the requirements of the Minimum Pass Descriptor. Each Marking Examiner then confirms with the Principal Examiner that (i) a new mark is to be awarded or (ii) their original mark stands. If, after this process has taken place, the two original Marking Examiners still disagree about whether the script is a pass or a fail, the script will be marked by a third examiner (the Principal Examiner where he/she has not already marked the script). The average of the two passes or the average of the two fail marks will be awarded.

(d.) Marginal script review

If one Examiner gives a mark of 47, 48 or 49, both Marking Examiners review the script to agree whether or not the fail is marginal. This discussion must consider if the script meets the requirements of the Minimum Pass Descriptor. If the averaged total then falls within the 47-49 band, the Principal Examiner reviews the paper. In other words, every mark that falls within the 47-49 bracket is reviewed during reconciliation.

Awarding

Separate Awarding meetings for Foundation and Finals examinations are held and attended by the Chief Examiner, Principal Examiners, and a patent attorney and lay member of the Governance Board. The purposes of the Awarding meeting are given below.

Ensure all candidates receive the appropriate result. (In exceptional circumstances, the Awarding Meeting may decide that the pass mark for a particular examination should be greater or less than 50% and how this the new pass mark should be determined).
Carry out the processes of checking that candidates’ work just below the pass mark has been accurately and consistently marked.
Identify any remarking that should be carried out.
Scrutinise any ‘conflict of interest’ candidates.
Consider any reported cases of suspected malpractice.
Consider marks for cohorts affected by disruption. Such a review could include a statistical comparison of marks/pass rates for this cohort with those from a cohort who suffered no disruptions.
Review marks and/or scripts/evidence for candidates who made a request for special consideration (e.g. illness on the day of examination).
Consider relevant candidate comments from the candidate survey.

Following any necessary remarking of scripts, marks are prepared for communication to candidates by e-mail. After candidates have received their results, the names of candidates who have passed will be published on the Patent Examination Board website.

If a candidate has failed an examination and is not content that his/her examinations were marked accurately, s/he may wish to invoke the ‘Enquiries about Results’ procedure, which has three stages (see http://www.cipa.org.uk/patent-examination-board/procedures/results- and-post-results-procedures).

Appendix 1 – Final Diploma Minimum Pass Descriptor

The minimally competent script will (2):

evidence adequate ability to apply legal reasoning to practical situations;
present appropriate solutions to problems;
demonstrate the ability to assimilate data and information provided to extract most of the major issues;
usually differentiate between different forms of evidence and information;
discern the primary points but not always the overall picture;
show adequate familiarity with appropriate and accurate legal and technical language;
provide written work that generally advises and informs the client, with proposals that are largely practicable and achievable;
present most key information;
provide argument that is comprehensible, structured and reasoned;
contain written material which mostly suits requirements (e.g. letter, brief, recommendation, statement of facts).

A candidate who achieves the level of minimal competence:

will have met all the major learning outcomes of the assessment as evidenced by a general knowledge and application of fundamental aspects of law and practice within the script but not necessarily within every answer;
demonstrates a satisfactory performance overall; weaknesses are limited to areas such as patchy coverage of relevant material, minor inaccuracies and irrelevancies;
will not have produced contradictory statements or statements that would undermine advice provided or a client’s patent rights.
will not have produced unethical advice, proposals or statements.

(1) There are 3 types of examiner: Marking Examiners who mark the examination paper in accordance with the mark scheme; Principal Examiners who set an exam paper and oversee the marking examiners for their paper; the Chief Examiners who has overall responsibility for both Foundation and Final examinations. (The Chief Examiner also acts as a Principal Examiner).

(2) The elements of the performance descriptor are generic and must be applied in the context of the unit syllabus content.

Qualifying Examinations Exemptions

Requesting a Law Exemption from FC2 English Law

Exemption requests can be made at any time, and we recommend requests for an FC2 (English Law) exemption are made no later than six weeks before the examination registration closing date. Requests received after this date will still be considered, but we cannot guarantee that they will be processed before the examination registration closing date.

Please send an email to [email protected] explaining which qualification you hold listed in Schedule 3 of the IPReg Rules for Examination and Admission of Individuals.

PEB QEs Assessment Strategy

1 The Patent Examination Board

The Patent Examination Board (PEB) was established in 2013 to provide assessments in the field of intellectual property. It was set up as a committee of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) and can only exist and operate as such (see PEB Constitution). The PEB acts independently of CIPA’s Council and is fully and separately accountable for its assessment activities.

The Intellectual Property Regulator (IPReg) determines the process of becoming a patent attorney in the United Kingdom (https://ipreg.org.uk/what-is-an-attorney/becoming-an-attorney). IPReg has accredited the PEB to provide qualifying examinations at foundation level (PEB Foundation Certificate) and at advanced level (PEB Final Diploma).

This Assessment Strategy provides an overview of the PEB’s approach to assessment of the PEB Qualifying Examinations (QEs). At the time of writing, the PEB is looking forward to engaging with IPReg to contribute to and support the ongoing Education Review, which is scheduled to report in 2027.

2 Governance of the PEB

The PEB Governance Board (GB) comprises patent attorney members and lay members who have expertise in professional training, examinations and assessment. There is a lay majority and the chair is a lay member elected from the lay member body.

The Terms of Reference (ToR) of the PEB GB form the operational framework for the quality assurance and quality enhancement of assessment. Specifically, the GB’s responsibilities require it to:

Monitor and quality assure the development of PEB policies, procedures and qualifications, including the development of assessment materials, and their operation.
Monitor the impact of PEB policies and procedures and assessment materials on equality of access to all PEB qualifications.
Receive reports and recommendations on examination performance (including reports from the Examination Committee) and advise on further actions to be taken.
Monitor a risk management process and identify and respond to significant and material risks to PEB.

The PEB comprises the Governance Board (GB) and the Examination Committees (EC). The ECs report to the GB. The PEB has a Head of Qualifications responsible for implementing the decisions of the GB and for management of the operation of the PEB.

3 The PEB Approach to Assessment

The PEB is committed to ensuring that its assessments

promote excellence in the education and training of patent attorneys.
are fair, including enhancing equality and diversity;
are underpinned by sound ethical principles;
meet high technical standards; and
incorporate best practice in assessment.

4 PEB’s Assessment Principles

The PEB Fair Access to Assessment Policy is published on the PEB website.

The PEB’s assessment policies and procedures are designed to ensure that:

PEB assessments are valid, reliable and fit for purpose
quality assurance and enhancement cycles are clear and transparent;
examining personnel and external experts contribute to quality assurance and enhancement where appropriate; and
quality assurance and enhancement is supported by stakeholder engagement where appropriate.

5 Development and Quality Assurance of PEB Qualifying Examinations

5.1 Annual and Periodic Reviews of Assessment

The PEB Constitution specifies that annual and five-yearly reviews of assessment will take place.

5.1.1 The Annual Review of assessment takes place at the meeting of the GB that immediately follows issue of examination results (normally the June meeting). External Examiners and Chief Examiners attend the meeting to present their Annual Reports.

The PEB GB will determine:

whether or not assessment in the examination session under consideration was valid, reliable and fit for purpose, and
any actions to be taken to enhance quality in future examinations sessions,

in light of its consideration of some or all of the following:

External Examiner and Chief Examiner Reports
Awarding Meeting Reports
Feedback from stakeholders including examiners (Examination Committee meetings); employers; CIPA Education Committee; candidates (the Annual Candidate Survey and the Candidate Consultative Committee meeting)
Information from the PEB Executive
The PEB Annual Report submitted to IPReg
External reports (QAA three-year Quality Assurance Review, IPReg reports and/or feedback)
any other relevant information or data including: recommendations by external education and assessment experts; and requirements, actions or recommendations arising in the course of Quality Enhancement meetings with IPReg.

5.1.2 The Periodic Review of Assessment takes place, in accordance with the Constitution, every five years. The next Periodic Review is scheduled to begin in 2029. It may be brought forward if it is appropriate to do so in order to respond to the outcomes of IPReg’s Education Review, which is scheduled to report in 2027.

The Periodic Review of Assessment will:

consider whether or not syllabus content and assessment methods continue to meet the needs of candidates and other stakeholders in light of changes to
consider whether assessments continue to be valid, reliable and fit for purpose,
identify any actions needed to enhance quality in future examinations sessions,

The Periodic Review will take into account the documentary and other evidence listed under 5.1.1 as well as any other relevant information and data, such as reports from previous Annual Reviews and matters arising in the course of interactions and liaison with IPReg.

The Periodic Review Report will be submitted to the PEB Governance Board, who will determine the actions to be implemented as a result of the Review.

5.2 Design and Development

When the PEB undertakes major qualification re-design and/or development, in the context of periodic review or otherwise, the process is as follows, with stages 3-6 being an iterative process:

1 Within the framework of the Three-Year Operational Plan, the PEB GB determines the timescale and broad aims of the development project.

2 PEB GB establishes a working group to manage the process. The working group includes PEB GB lay and patent attorney members, examiners, and the PEB Executive. Where appropriate, external experts and stakeholders are consulted.

3 The working group reviews the specification, unit syllabi, question papers and mark schemes in the light of information and data from the sources listed under 5.1.1 above.

4 As necessary, a revised specification and unit syllabi are drafted.

5 Subject to PEB GB approval of the specification and unit syllabi, and as necessary, specimen question papers and mark schemes are drafted and tested.

6 Consultation with stakeholders (the profession, CIPA Education Committee, candidates) takes place on the revised syllabi, question papers and mark schemes.

7 Revised specification, unit syllabi, specimen question papers and specimen mark schemes are published in the March preceding the first examination of revised unit syllabi.

5.2.1 Validity

The concept of validity is pervasive throughout the design, development and delivery of PEB assessments.

At the design and development stage, the following aspects of validity are considered:

The knowledge, skills and understanding (competences) that should be assessed are defined (specification and unit syllabi) in terms of preparing candidates for professional patent attorney roles.
The best methods and forms of assessment to assess the defined knowledge, skills and understanding are specified (question papers and mark schemes).
The unit syllabi set out the knowledge, skills and understanding that will be assessed as learning outcomes and assessment criteria.

5.2.2 Reliability

Reliability links to validity. A reliable assessment should result in comparable outcomes for candidates with comparable characteristics who take their assessments on different occasions or whose scripts are marked by different markers.

The PEB’s quality assurance mechanisms for setting, marking and awarding are designed to achieve reliable outcomes for candidates.

5.2.3 Fitness for Purpose

Fitness for purpose relates primarily to the characteristics and needs of the stakeholders, particularly the candidates. It also relates to the extent to which administration of the assessments is manageable.

5.3 Use of External Expertise

External consultants and contractors provide expertise in a number of ways at different stages of the PEB assessment cycle.

GB patent attorney members and examiners provide professional expertise and expertise in the assessment of patent attorney skills and knowledge.
GB lay members and consultants provide expertise in professional education and training.
Chief Examiners and external assessment experts provide expertise on educational assessment.
EDI experts are used when necessary to provide guidance on EDI issues.
Other experts are contracted for specific tasks such as analysis of the Annual Candidate Report data.

6 Assessment Model

6.1 Assessment Methods

The Qualifying Examinations are summative assessments. They are assessed by PEB-set, examiner-marked examinations, which candidates sit under timed, invigilated conditions

The assessment instruments (question papers and mark schemes) use the following types of assessment items:

Short-answer questions: candidates should provide succinct, specific responses to questions. Mark schemes may accept a range of responses.
Extended-response questions: candidates respond to a situation or a problem by organising and providing their response.
Competence-based tasks: candidates analyse and respond to a complex situation presented in a scenario that reflects professional practice. For the FD4 assessment, candidates are provided with some information as pre-release material ahead of the examination.

6.2 Assessment Processes

The table in Section 7.1 sets out the processes followed in the course of the assessment cycle.

6.3 Awarding

The aim of awarding is first to establish the appropriate standard that constitutes a Pass (minimum competency) in that examination and then to align the standard in subsequent examination sessions with the standard applied in previous sessions.

The Awarding Meeting takes place at the end of the assessment cycle, following marking and quality assurance of marking. Each unit within the qualification is reviewed separately. A range of statistical data and other information is considered to arrive at a Pass mark for the unit.

7 Quality assurance and enhancement process map

The PEB’s quality assurance work is focused on producing high quality examinations which test the knowledge and skills of aspiring patent attorneys wishing to practise in the United Kingdom.

Assessment Processes and Inputs that Inform Quality Assurance

Assessment process

Documents

Input to inform quality assurance

Question paper and mark scheme setting

PEs draft question paper and mark scheme for their unit; selected Marking Examiners may contribute (subject to PEB agreement)

Syllabi

Chief Examiner Instructions

Setting Instructions

Feedback from

● Chief Examiner

● PEB GB Patent Attorney

● PEB Executive

Question paper review and Question Paper Editing Committee (QPEC)

PEs present draft final version of question paper and mark scheme

Setting Instructions

Tester Instructions

Chief Examiner Instructions

External Examiner Instructions

Feedback from

● Tester(s)

● Chief Examiner

● PEB GB Patent Attorney

● PEB GB Lay Member

● PEB Executive

● Other Principal Examiners

● External Examiner

Review and approval of final draft question paper and mark scheme

Chief Examiner reviews final drafts and provides feedback to PE

External Examiner reviews final drafts, provides feedback to PE, and approves QP and MS if benchmarking standards are met

External Examiner Instructions

Chief Examiner Instructions

Setting Instructions

Benchmarking standards to be defined

Feedback from

● External proof reader

● Chief Examiner

● External Examiner

Standardisation

PEs (and MEs for Final Diploma) mark sample scripts.

Sample scripts and mark scheme reviewed and mark scheme finalised

External Examiner Instructions

Chief Examiner Instructions

Marking and Awarding Instructions

Led by Principal Examiner with input from

● Chief Examiner

● External Examiner

● PEB GB Patent Attorney

● PEB GB Lay Member

Assessment process		Documents	Input to inform quality assurance
Marking	Marking	Marking and Awarding Instructions	Feedback from (FD) Marking Examiners to PE on how question paper and mark scheme worked and candidate performance
Marking	Quality assurance of marking: marks reconciliation	Marking and Awarding Instructions	Feedback to PE from Marking Examiners and vice versa
Awarding	All borderline scripts reviewed Final marks for each paper confirmed by CE and Pes	Marking and Awarding Instructions External Examiner Instructions Chief Examiner Instructions	Statistical data prepared by the PEB Qualitative information provided by the unit Principal Examiner Input from: ● Other PEs ● PEB GB Patent Attorney ● PEB GB Lay Member ● PEB Executive ● Finals Chief Examiner ● External Examiner’s review of sample marked scripts
Examination Committee	Provide advice on syllabi content, assessment and procedures	Examination Committees’ Terms of Reference Minutes of previous Examination Committee and Action Plan, if relevant Chief Examiner Instructions	Feedback and recommendations to PEB GB
Examiner Quality Assurance	CE reviews PE performance PEs review Marking Examiner performance	Examiner Quality Assurance Procedure and forms (Marking and Awarding Instructions)	Feedback to CE, PEs and Marking Examiners Recommendations for re-appointment from PEs to PEB Executive
Annual syllabus review	PEs review and update syllabus content	Unit syllabi	Revised syllabi and law update are published on the PEB website
Assessment Review and Enhancement
PEB Annual Review of assessment	PEB GB receive reports of Chief Examiners and External Examiners and review previous session	PEB GB Constitution paragraphs 38, 39 and 40 (below) PEB GB Terms of Reference paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 (below)	With a view to confirming whether assessments were valid, reliable and fit for purpose, the PEB GB considers: ● Chief Examiner reports ● External Examiner reports ● Examination Committee feedback ● Candidate feedback including Annual Candidate Survey Report and feedback from the Candidate Consultative Committee ● If relevant, other stakeholder feedback including external reports such as QAA Review Report, IPReg reports ● Information from the PEB Executive
IPReg Annual Report and Quality Enhancement Meeting	From 2026, to consider potential enhancements to quality of assessment identified during the assessment cycle.	PEB Annual Report	Clarification of process and format awaited
Five-yearly Periodic Review of Assessment (due 2029)	Major review and FD re-development took place in 2023-2025 with implementation delayed pending outcomes of IPReg’s Education Review (expected 2027)	PEB GB Constitution paragraph 41 (below)

PEB GB Constitution:

The GB shall take full responsibility for quality assurance of assessments, subject to any additional external accreditation requirements put in place by IPReg, to ensure that assessments meet the minimum requirements for entry onto the IPReg Register.
The GB will be accountable for the validity, reliability, freedom from bias, and comparability of the question papers, the quality of marking and the monitoring of adherence to national qualification levels.
An annual review of assessment will take place at the GB meeting following the release of assessment results.
A periodic review of assessment will take place every five years.

PEB GB Terms of Reference:

Monitor and quality assure the development of PEB policies, procedures and qualifications, including the development of assessment materials, and their operation.
Monitor the impact of PEB policies and procedures and assessment materials on equality of access to all PEB qualifications.
Receive reports and recommendations on examination performance (including reports from the External Examiner and the Examination Committees) and advise on further actions to be taken.

Quality Timeline, Inputs and Outputs

June/ July

QPEC monitoring reports submitted to PEB.

September

PEB GB meeting:

● receives QPEC monitoring reports.

Candidate Consultative Committee meets and provides candidate feedback.

October

Following QE examinations, candidates are invited to complete Annual Candidate Survey.

Invigilator reports are submitted to PEB. PEB Executive reviews and identifies any required actions.

November

Standardisation meeting monitoring reports submitted to PEB for review at December GB meeting.

December

PEB GB meeting:

● review of all policies and procedures

● Standardisation meeting monitoring reports received.

February/ March

Awarding Meetings take place.

Awarding monitoring reports submitted to PEB

Examination Committees held and minuted and Action Plans prepared

Marking examiners feed back to Principal Examiners

CE/PEs submit quality assurance report forms to PEB

PEs’ reports to candidates and PEB Administrative report published when results are issued.

March

PEB GB meeting:

● reviews Awarding monitoring reports

● approves Annual Candidate Survey report and PEB Response for publication.

April

Annual Candidate Survey Report and PEB Response published

Chief Examiners’ reports submitted to PEB

External Examiners’ reports submitted to PEB

Revised syllabi and law update published

June

PEB GB meeting:

● Annual Review of Assessment

● EEs and CEs attend GB to present their reports

● approves Annual Report for IPReg.

July

PEB Annual Report submitted to IPReg.

PEB-IPReg Annual Quality enhancement meeting considers potential enhancements to quality of assessment identified during the assessment cycle.

Procedures

Quick links