2.1.2 Professional experience

A further requirement for enrolment is that at the date of the examination a candidate must normally have worked full-time for at least three years in the field of European patent applications and European patents in a contracting state, as set out in Art. 11(2) to (5) REE and R. 15 IPREE. For the pre-examination the period is reduced by one year (Art. 11(7) REE). The period may be reduced by six months for candidates who have successfully completed specialised studies of at least one academic year in the field of industrial property (R. 16(1) IPREE).

One way of acquiring this work experience is to complete a training period under the supervision of and as an assistant to one or more professional representatives before the EPO, in accordance with Art. 11(2)(a)(i) REE. According to D 4/86 (OJ 1988, 26), to comply with the equivalent provision (Art. 7(1)(b)(i) REE 1977, as amended), the trainee had to have completed his training period under conditions likely to ensure that he had actually assisted a professional representative by constantly taking part in activities pertaining to patent application procedures of which the representative was in fact in charge. D 14/93 (OJ 1997, 561) ruled that the training period could not be served with a legal practitioner whose name did not appear on the list of professional representatives, even if the said practitioner was a patent attorney under national law (see Art. 134(7) EPC 1973; cf. Art. 134(8) EPC). The activities referred to in Art. 7(1)(b) REE 1991 presupposed the scientific or technical knowledge required for activities pertaining to European patent applications and patents; persons training EQE candidates needed to possess such knowledge, and legal practitioners did not normally do so. D 25/96 (OJ 1998, 45) ruled that the period of professional activity required for the EQE enrolment could not be served with a self-employed German patent agent who was not on the list of professional representatives.

A candidate may alternatively complete the prescribed period of professional activity as an employee, in accordance with Art. 11(2)(a)(ii) REE. The relevant conditions are not met where the candidate's employer is not represented before the EPO by the candidate in accordance with Art. 133(3) EPC but by external patent attorneys, or where the candidate's main activity has been in the field of national or international applications and patents (D 6/10, with reference to D 12/06 and D 13/06; see also D 11/11, with reference to D 32/07; furthermore D 1/12 to D 4/12). Given the tenor of Art. 11(2)(a)(ii) REE, (mere) professional activity and activities pertaining to patent law cannot be treated as two distinct requirements. Professional activity can be recognised only if and for such time as candidates were able to represent their employer before the EPO and in fact did so. They must have been authorised to act as representative by their employer, but formal authorisation is not enough by itself, as it does not show whether, as required, they have actually worked in that capacity (D 1/13).

In D 16/04 the board confirmed that the Examination Secretariat's practice of allowing only periods of professional activity completed after the required degree was obtained was not in conflict with Art. 10 REE 1994. Art. 10(1) REE 1994 mentioned the requirement of possessing a university-level scientific or technical or equivalent qualification first, followed by a reference to the conditions set out in paragraph 2, i.e. the three-year full-time training period to be completed by the date of the examination. The required length of the training period was a consequence of the candidate's technical or scientific degree acquired before starting the training period rather than vice versa. See also D 6/08. This is now a requirement under Art. 11(3) REE, which, in conjunction with R. 15(2) IPREE, also specifies how periods of professional activity may be aggregated to make up a full-time training period.

The period under Art. 11(2)(a) REE may be reduced by up to one year if a candidate has been a patent examiner at the EPO or the national patent office of a contracting state (R. 16(2) IPREE), and under Art. 11(2)(b) REE candidates who at the date of the examination have performed full-time the duties of an examiner at the EPO for at least four years are permitted to enrol without having previously worked in accordance with Art. 11(2)(a) REE. In D 19/04 the board pointed out that corresponding provision Art. 10(2)(b) REE 1994 related to EPO examiners, who in view of their professional experience could be assumed to have a comprehensive knowledge of the European patent grant procedure. The professional experience of long-serving examiners in national offices could not be equated with that of EPO examiners.